Where a seller orders the payment of the remainder to the buyer even though the seller's obligation to transfer ownership has been impossible;

Where the seller's obligation to implement the registration of transfer of ownership becomes impossible due to the buyer's violation of the principle of good faith, the buyer shall perform the obligation to pay the remainder.

Article 538 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul Central District Court (69A12023) in the first instance trial

(1) The appeal is dismissed.

(2) Costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 2,260,000 won with an annual interest rate of 5% from October 20, 1969 to the full payment system.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a provisional execution declaration are declared.

The defendant¡¯s attorney shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

The court costs are assessed against all the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. On August 4, 1969, the plaintiff agreed to pay the plaintiff 2,260,000 won for part of the above purchase price, and the defendant did not pay the plaintiff 2,260,000 won for the remaining remaining price until October 19, 1968 and 287,000 won for 4,410,000 won for 4,410,000 won for 37-4,000 won for 4,000 won for 4,000 won for 19,000 won for 1,000 won for 1969,000 won for 1,000 won for 196,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for 1,000 won for each of the above remaining price payment.

2. Therefore, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant would have been liable to pay damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from October 20, 1969 to the date following the agreed date of the above remaining payment agreement for the sale and purchase of the above real estate, and that the defendant first purchased the above real estate as a construction site. After the investigation, it was clearly stated that most of the real estate was set as a park site, and the defendant did not know that there were errors in the current status of the present real estate, which is the object of the sale and purchase, and if the defendant had known such facts in advance, the defendant did not conclude the above sale contract. Thus, if the defendant had cancelled the above sale contract on August 4, 1969 on the ground that there was an error in the above important part of the defendant's expression of intention in the above sale and purchase contract between Won and the defendant, the defendant had no obligation to pay the remaining amount, and in light of the fact that the non-party 2 and the non-party 27-party 27 testimony of the present case, the witness testimony and testimony of this case, the court below.

Even if the defendant caused a mistake as alleged by the defendant, it does not explicitly or explicitly indicate that the defendant would purchase the real estate of this case for the purpose of using it as a building site at the time of conclusion of the sales contract of this case, but it was only the defendant's non-solitary sense (the preparatory document dated November 9, 1969 and September 21, 1970). The above mistake is merely an error of the non-indicted 1 for the defendant to purchase the real estate of this case, and it cannot be revoked because it is merely an error of the non-indicted 1 for the defendant to purchase the real estate of this case. Thus, the defendant's defense that is unnecessary to enter into the judgment is dismissed

Next, even if the sales contract of this case remains effective, since the ownership of this case was already transferred to a third party and the plaintiff cannot perform the obligation to transfer ownership to the defendant at the same time with the receipt of the above remaining amount, the above remaining amount cannot be paid. However, as seen earlier, the defendant transferred the above secured debt with the above secured debt to the non-party 4 on September 4, 1969, and the non-party 4 acquired the ownership of this case on the ground of the decision to permit the successful bid on January 16, 1970 upon the execution of the above secured debt. Thus, the plaintiff's obligation to transfer ownership of this case to the defendant pursuant to the above sales contract is impossible. However, such failure is caused by the transfer of the above secured debt to the third party in violation of the principle of good faith required by the defendant under the above sales contract, and it is obvious that the defendant's obligation can not be fulfilled if the creditor's obligation cannot be performed on the grounds of one of the parties to the bilateral contract.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified in the judgment of the court below because it is not necessary to enter the remaining part of the judgment, and thus, it will be accepted. Thus, the judgment of the court below which forms the above conclusion is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is dismissed in accordance with Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act, and it is decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 95 and 89

Judges Lee Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)

Judges Kim Jong-Un, near all others, is unable to sign.