Whether the seller's warranty liability is a liability without fault or negligence.

The liability under the Civil Code Article 570 or 572 is a kind of strict liability in order to protect the buyer's contribution in consideration of the nature of the non-performance due to the cause attributable to the seller.

Articles 570 and 572 of the Civil Act

Gyeonggi-do

Defendant 1 and six others

Seoul and Criminal District Court Incheon (71Gahap336) in the first instance trial.

(1) The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff shall be revoked.

(2) Defendant 2 shall pay to the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 2,459,605; KRW 157,650 to Defendant 1; KRW 149,40 to Defendant 3; KRW 200,810 to Defendant 4; KRW 178,480 to Defendant 5; KRW 121,160 to Defendant 6; KRW 117,982 to Defendant 7; KRW 371,321 to Defendant 8; and KRW 5 percent to the date of full payment.

(3) Defendant 2’s appeal is dismissed.

(4) Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs of lawsuit incurred by Defendant 2’s appeal shall be borne by Defendant 2, and the remainder of the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in both the first and second instances.

(5) Paragraph (2) above and Paragraph (1) above can be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff shall pay the amount of 2,985,00 won to the defendant 2, 172,100 won to the defendant 3, 163,100 won to the defendant 4, 220,450 won to the defendant 5, 195,80 won to the defendant 6, 132,850 won to the defendant 7, 129,650 won to the defendant 8, and 5 percent per annum from the following day to the day of complete delivery of this case.

The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the defendants and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff has sought the same judgment as the disposition, and the defendant 2 has revoked the part against the defendant in the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

6. The plaintiff 1 and 6. The plaintiff 2 were issued with the non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1 and 9's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 4's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 6's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 1's non-party 6's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 1'6'6'

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the above land was transferred to the plaintiff by acquiring each right and transferring it to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances. Thus, the defendants are obliged to compensate the plaintiff who declared that the sales contract between the plaintiff and the defendant 2, other than the plaintiff and the defendant 2, will cancel one copy of the contract.

In this context, when Defendant 2 claims damages in lieu of the cancellation of a sales contract for the portion of land that was sold to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s right cannot be transferred to the Plaintiff, the bona fide purchaser should exercise the right within one year from the time when he became aware of the fact pursuant to Article 573 of the Civil Act, even though he was ordered to eliminate the registration of co-ownership transfer filed by the State, the Plaintiff exercised the right after the lapse of the period. However, even if the bona fide purchaser knew of the fact that one part of the right that was the object of the sale and purchase belongs to another person, he cannot exercise the right as provided in Article 572 of the Civil Act unless the right is not transferred to the purchaser, so the progress of the period of exercise of the right should not be deemed to proceed from the time when he became aware of the fact that the ownership cannot be transferred to the purchaser. Thus, in this case, in a lawsuit claiming cancellation of the registration of co-ownership transfer filed by the State against the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is obvious that the national favorable judgment became final and conclusive by the lower court.

2. Damages;

Since the right has become the objective of sale and purchase belongs to another person, if the seller is unable to acquire the right and transfer it to the buyer, then the buyer's right does not belong to the seller's right. The calculation of damages that the buyer could claim against the seller is the same economic interest as the profit that the buyer could have obtained if the sale and purchase contract was fully performed. Thus, unless there is any special circumstance otherwise, Defendant 200 won shall be determined at the market price of the object at the time of impossibility of performance. Since the plaintiff obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the State in the lawsuit claiming cancellation of the registration of co-ownership transfer against the plaintiff and the defendants, it would lose the plaintiff's co-ownership. Therefore, it is impossible for the plaintiff to claim damages that are substituted for the cancellation of each sale and purchase contract between the defendants at the market price of June 8, 1971, and according to the result of the appraisal by the appraiser 6 of the court below, 5,000 won per square day, 300 won, 150 won, 2005 won, 3005 won, 1500 won, 20.

The Defendants asserted that they were unaware of the land owned by others at the time of sale and purchase that they are liable for paying only the sales amount of the down payment received from the Plaintiff pursuant to the sales contract and the sales amount pursuant to the sales contract. However, each of the certificates of Nos. 1-2, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7-1 (each sales contract) and 9-1 (each of the above certificates of No. 1-2, No. 1-2, 4, 6, and 7-2 shall be paid by the buyer the amount of the down payment received from the buyer, and the damages incurred due to the seller’s nonperformance of the contract under the above contract cannot be deemed as the liquidated damages for the nonperformance of the contract. However, the claim of this case is based on the Civil Act Article 570 or 572 of the Civil Act and the seller’s duty to transfer the right is impossible due to the seller’s default of the contract and its nature, and thus, it is not reasonable for

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendants are obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above and the above amount by the rate of 5% per annum for delay damages from October 15, 1971 to the date following the day when the head of this case gugu is delivered to the defendants with compensation for damages to the plaintiff. The plaintiff's claim is justified and accepted in its entirety. The plaintiff's appeal is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is revoked from the part of the judgment against the plaintiff, and is accepted by the original judgment, and the plaintiff's appeal is revoked, and the defendant 2 is 525,395 won, 14,450 won, 13,70 won, 19,640 won, 50 won, 17,320 won, 11,690 won, 7, 1690 won, 16, 168, 298, 99 of the Civil Procedure Act, and 9 of the provisional execution damages are dismissed. The plaintiff's appeal is with no reason to dismiss the difference between the defendant's appeal and damages.

Judge Han Man-Sung (Presiding Judge)