The meaning of Article 572 (1) of the Civil Act and whether the proviso of Article 580 of the Civil Act shall apply in the case of Article 572 (1) (negative)

If a decision of expropriation was made by the State in accordance with "the Ordinance on Special Measures for Expropriation and Use of Land within an area to be mobilized under Article 5 (4) of the Act on Special Measures for National Security", the buyer, even though his ownership has not yet been finally attributed to the State, may request the seller to reduce the purchase price in accordance with Article 572 (1) of the Civil Code regardless of whether he knew of the decision of expropriation or was negligent, and the provisions of the proviso of Article 580 of the Civil Code do not apply to this case.

Articles 572 and 580 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na212 delivered on September 25, 1980

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The gist of the defendant's grounds of appeal is as follows: first, although the real estate sales contract, including the land in this case between the defendant and the non-party 1, including the non-party 1, had been lawfully rescinded, the above contract remains effective without liability for the non-party 1's failure to perform the contract; third, due to various circumstances, the plaintiff and the non-party cannot purchase and sell the land between the plaintiff and the non-party; second, even if there was a decision of expropriation of some of the subject matter of this case, the previous land owner does not lose its ownership until the purchase price is paid to the land owner or repaid by other methods; and even if there was such defect in the subject matter of this case, even if the purchaser who knew or was not aware of such fact did not request the cancellation or reduction of the contract under Article 572 of the Civil Code, the court below erred in interpreting or rejected the defendant's assertion by applying the law; third, it can be found that the non-party's remaining payment of the purchase price in this case was not sufficient to liquidate the purchase price.

Therefore, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1 and the non-party 3's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 9's non-party 2's non-party 9'

Next, if a part of the right which was the object of sale belongs to another person and it is impossible for the seller to acquire the right and transfer the right to the buyer, the buyer may claim a reduction of the price at the rate of the part, and if the buyer fails to purchase only the remaining part, the bona fide buyer shall be entitled to cancel the whole contract. Article 572(1) and (2) of the Civil Act provides that it is reasonable to exercise the right to request a reduction of the price or the right to cancel the contract to the buyer in light of the general social transaction norms and regulations for the protection of the buyer in the sale, if the exercise of the right to cancel the contract is difficult to the extent that it is reasonable. Thus, if the land expropriation decision of the State under the Special Measures Act was made, the procedure and ownership should not be determined definitely, and if part of the right which was the object of the sale belongs to another person, the seller's right to request a reduction of the price can not be transferred to the buyer, and the right to request a reduction or the right to cancel the contract is different from the seller's right to request a reduction of the contract.

Therefore, the defendant's ground of appeal is not acceptable, and this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant as the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Il-young (Presiding Justice)