Where the parties to a contract of sale and purchase erroneously indicate the subject-matter of the contract by causing a mistake in the parcel number of the subject matter, such subject matter.

In the real estate sales contract, both parties have taken a specific land into consideration as the object of the contract, but when entering into the contract by causing an error as to the parcel number, etc. of the object, even if the contract stated the separate land as the object of the contract, if both parties agree to the effect that the object of the contract is the object of the sale of the land A, it shall be deemed that the contract was entered into for the land A, and it shall not be deemed that the contract was entered into for the land B, and if the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the name of the buyer on the ground of the contract, it shall be null and void as it was made without any cause.

Articles 105, 186, and 563 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff, Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jong-soo and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) 1 and 3 others (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant-Counterclaim (Attorney Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-Counterclaim)

Daegu District Court Decision 95Na8742, 8759 delivered on April 3, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In the real estate sales contract, if both parties have used a specific land as the object of the contract, but when entering into the contract by mistake as to the parcel number, etc. of the object, even if the object was indicated separately as the object of the contract as the object of the contract, if both parties agree that the object of the contract shall be the object of the sale, the above sales contract shall be deemed to be constituted as to the land A, and it shall not be deemed that the sales contract for the land B was concluded. If the registration of transfer of ownership was made in the buyer’s name on the ground of the above sales contract for the land B, it shall be deemed null and void as it was made without any cause (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da2629, 2636 delivered on October 26, 193).

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning after compiling the evidences, and found the object of the sales contract that the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 entered into with the defendant 1 (the non-party 1 and the non-party 1), regardless of its lot number, shall be the land actually occupied and cultivated [the (the address omitted) 1593m2]. Therefore, even if both parties have caused the above sales contract, the registration of ownership transfer was made in the defendant 1 (the counter-party 1) with respect to the land of this case which the non-party 1 occupied and cultivated. In light of the records, the court below held that the non-party 2, who was the owner of the land of this case and the non-party 1, sold the above (the address omitted) land of this case to the non-party 3 and completed the registration of transfer of the above (the address omitted) land of this case, and therefore, the registration of transfer was made successively different from the facts, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the facts.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Ho-ho (Presiding Justice)