The decision to expropriate some of the objects of sale and the decision on whether to demand payment of the total purchase and sale balance (negative)

Even if there was a decision to expropriate some of the objects of sale, it constitutes a case where there is a defect in the subject matter of sale by itself, even though the decision to expropriate had not yet reached the loss of ownership. Therefore, if there is a dispute over whether to reduce the purchase price for that part, the buyer may refuse a seller’s demand to pay the total remainder even before the agreement to reduce the purchase price has been reached.

Articles 544, 572, and 574 of the Civil Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 80Na1275 delivered on September 12, 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 generally followed:

First, even though the court below led to the confession that the defendant calculated the price in the sales contract of this case between the defendant and the non-party in the first instance court, it is against the rules of evidence that there was no sufficient evidence to acknowledge that the revocation of confession was against the truth. Second, even if there was a decision to expropriate some of the sale objects of this case, there is no defect in the object of sale because the previous land owner is not lost its ownership until the purchase price is paid to the land owner or deposited by lawful procedure. The non-party, the purchaser, was not aware of such fact even if it was found to be defective, there is no right to cancel the contract. Therefore, it is unfair that the non-party requested the reduction of the price for the land for which the above decision was made and did not perform its duty to pay the remaining purchase price of this case. Therefore, it is legitimate that the court below rejected the defendant's assertion, erroneous or erroneous, and it can be summary that the court below acknowledged the violation of the rules of evidence between the plaintiff and the non-party.

First, the defendant's first and third grounds of appeal are examined together.

In light of the record, the court below did not accept the defendant's revocation of confession, and the action that recognized the fact of the sales contract between the plaintiff and the non-party is just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence as in the theory of lawsuit.

Next, the court below's second ground of appeal is examined as follows. The defendant's decision to expropriate part of the object of sale of this case between the defendant and the non-party is clear that the defendant's ownership was not lost due to the decision to expropriate part of the object of sale of this case, and even if there remains ownership of the defendant, it constitutes a case where there is any defect in the object of sale. Since the above decision is justified, the defendant's assertion on this point is due to misunderstanding of the purport of the judgment below, and there is no evidence to find that the non-party's above non-party's above decision to expropriate was not known or was negligent as at the time of the above contract of the above non-party's above, and the court below's decision that found that the non-party's above non-party's above non-party's above non-party's above non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-performance of contract.

Ultimately, this part of the map is without merit.

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

Justices Shin Jong-young (Presiding Justice)