The case where the buyer was negligent in the sale of land owned by a third party, and the negligence is recognized to be offset in calculating the amount of damages caused by the impossibility of performance.

Even if a seller has a certificate of registration right in the sale of land owned by a third party, in the register, if it is registered in the name of a third party, and if the land is occupied by another party, the buyer is found to have purchased the land, and it can be confirmed that the seller is the third party's property by finding the name of the third party or the possessor of the land. Therefore, the negligence caused by negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of compensation for damages caused by nonperformance.

Articles 571 and 396 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daejeon District Court (72A322 delivered on July 1, 200)

1. From among the parts against the defendant in the original judgment, the part ordering payment of KRW 370,000 and the part ordering payment in excess of the amount equivalent to five percent per annum from July 23, 1971 to the full payment, shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim on the revoked part shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of lawsuit are five minutes for the first and second trials, which are one of which shall be borne by the plaintiff, and the remaining four by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 420,00 won and the amount at the rate of 5% per annum from July 1, 1971 to the full payment. The court costs shall be borne by the defendant and a sentence of provisional execution is sought.

The part against the defendant in the original judgment shall be revoked. The plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in both the first and second instances.

성립에 다툼이 없는 갑 제1호증(매매계약서), 갑 제2호증의 1(기록표지), 동 호증의 2(공솟장), 동 호증의 3,4,5(각 공판조서), 동 호증의 6(판결)(위 갑 제2호증의 3,4의 기재중 믿지아니하는 부분제외), 갑 제3호증의 1(기록표지), 갑 제4호증(인감증명), 갑 제5호증(등기부등본)(=을 제1호증), 을 제2호증(지적도등본), 을 제3호증(인감증병), 공성부분을 인정하였으므로 각 그 진정성립이 추종되는 갑 제6,7,8호증(각 확인원), 당심증인 소외 1의 증언에 의하여 진정성립이 인정되는 을 제9호증(영수증)의 각 기재에 소외 1, 원심증인 소외 2, 당심증인 소외 3의 각 증언부분(각 믿지아니하는 부분제외)과 원심의 검증결과 및 변론의 전취지를 종합하면, 대전시 부사동 376 밭 346평(이하 이건 토지라 약칭한다)은 원래 소외 2의 소유이었고, 그 밭은 뚝을 중심으로 아래 위로 나뉘어져 있는데 소외 2는 1953.1.10.경 그의 어머니를 통하여 위 밭 346평중 위에서 본 뚝 위 부분 밭(이하 위 밭이라 약칭한다.)을 100평으로 쳐서 소외 4에게 매도하고 그 등기를 이를 분할하여 1필지의 토지를 만들어 이전등기를 하여주던지 그것이 어려우면 그 매수토지부분 평수에 상당한 지분권이전등기를 하여 주기로 하고, 그때까지 이건 토지 346평에 대한 등기권리증을 보관하도록 소외 4에게 맡긴 사실, 또 소외 2는 그 다음해 봄경에 나머지 뚝아래 밭부분(이하 아래 밭이라 약칭한다)을 246평으로 쳐서 피고와 백미 7가마와 교환하고, 그 등기는 소외 4의 경우와 같이 분할하여 이전등기를 하여주던지 지분이전등기를 하여 주기로하고, 동시경 소외 4의 양해를 얻어 그 이전등기를 하여 줄때까지 소외 4와 이건 토지의 등기권리증을 공동 보관토록 한 사실, 소외 4 및 피고는 위 각 매수일자부터 현재까지 위 아래, 위 밭을 각 나누어 경작하여오고 위 등기권리증은 소외 4가 피고의 동의를 얻어 계속 보관하여 오다가 1967년경부터는 피고와 교대로 이를 보관하여 왔는데 피고는 1970.6.8.경 그가 위 등기권리증을 보관하고 있음을 기화로 이건 토지 346평 전부를 매수하고 아직 미등기인 것처럼 원고를 속이고 이를 진실로 믿은 원고에게 이건토지 345평 전부를 평당 금 3,500원씩 결가하여 매도하고, 그 대금전액을 동년7.8까지 모두 지급받고, 한편으로 는 1970.6.24. 동년 7.1, 11.19. 1971.4.20. 4차에 걸쳐 소외 2에게 피고가 매수한 위 아래밭에 집을 짓는데 등기명의자인 소외 2의 인감이 필요하다고 거짓말을 하여 이에 속은 동 소외인으로부터 그의 인감을 교부받아 각 동시경 동 소외인의 인감증명을 발급받고(위 1,2차는 소외 2의 등기부상 주소와 인감주소가 다르기 때문에 3,4차에 이에 들어맞게 발급받다), 또다시 그 인감을 이용하여 1970.6.24.마치 소외 2와 피고사이에 이건 토지 전부에 대하여 중간등기를 생략하고 직접 원고에게 이전등기하여 가도록 합의 한 것처럼 직접 소외 2명의에서 원고명의로 매도증서 및 위임장등 이건 토지전부에 대한 소유권이전등기에 필요한 제반서류를 작성하여 위 대금전액을 지급받은 날자인 1970.7.8.에 이를 원고에게 넘겨주고, 한편 피고는 소외 4와의 사이에 동년 7.1. 그 위아래 밭 중심에 있는 뚝부지부분 전부를 피고의 소유로 하기로 합의하고, 그 대가로 금 30,000원을 소외 4에게 지급한 사실, 소외 4는 1971.7.23.경 뚝부지부분을 공제하고 그가 매수한 이 밭부분을 측량한 결과 70평이었으므로, 동시경 소외 2의 협력을 얻어 그 70평에 상당한 지분인 이건 토지의 지분 70/346을 그 명의로 이전등기한 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 위 인정에 일부 어긋나는 위 갑 제2호증의 3,4기재 부분과 소외 1, 2, 3의 증언부분은 위 인정한 증거에 대비하여 믿을 수 없고, 달리 위 인정을 뒤집음에 족한 증거는 없다.

According to the above facts, the defendant sold 70 square meters in front of the land of this case to the plaintiff who is aware of the fact, and the defendant's obligation to perform the transfer of ownership pursuant to the above sales contract against the plaintiff of this case is about 70 square meters in the above 346 square meters in the land of this case, the non-party 4 was in an unperformanceable state on July 23, 1971 in front of the completion of the transfer of ownership registration. In addition, as the delivery of this guar, part of the above contract was discharged, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused to the plaintiff.

Meanwhile, even if the defendant had a certificate of right to register the whole land of this case at the time of purchase of this case, the plaintiff was registered in the name of the non-party 2 on the register, and since the above dry field was cultivated by the non-party 4, the plaintiff was found in the above dry field on the register, which is the non-party 2 or the non-party 4, who is the above dry field cultivator in the above dry field, and confirmed whether the defendant purchased the whole land of this case, the above 70 square meters portion was the non-party 2, who was the name of the registered name on the register, and it was immediately known that the defendant was about whether the above 70 square meters portion was the non-party 4, but did not take such measures, and the defendant

However, as above, the defendant's attorney held that the plaintiff was not liable for damages incurred to the defendant since the non-party 4 was in a situation where the above contract was partially impossible by making the registration of transfer of ownership equivalent to the above 70 square meters, while the plaintiff neglected to file an application for registration. However, even if the plaintiff had completed the registration of transfer of the whole land in front of the plaintiff, it cannot be deemed as a provision of performance according to the main text of the above contract merely on the ground that the plaintiff provided the plaintiff with the documents for registration as alleged in the claim that the registration of transfer of ownership equivalent to the above 70 square meters should be treated as an invalid registration in conformity with the substantive relationship.

Therefore, as to the amount of damages, the defendant is liable not only for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, but also for the damages caused by the loss of the profit which the plaintiff would have gained if the part of the contract was rescinded. In the absence of special circumstances, the amount of damages before the above 70 square meters as of July 23, 1971, the above 70 square meters as of July 23, 1971, and according to the appraiser non-party 5's appraisal results, it can be recognized that the ordinary market price of the land as of July 2, 1971 was 6,000 won and there is no other counter-proof. In light of the Korean economic situation, the above ordinary market price as of July 2, 197 is not entirely reduced later, but also for the damages caused by the loss of the plaintiff's profit. In light of the Korean economic situation, around July 23, 1971, the above 300 won should have been found to have been maintained at the above normal price x 4000 billion won.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of 370,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum from July 23, 1971 to the full payment of damages incurred therefrom. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition and the remainder shall be dismissed without merit. Since the original judgment is accepted in excess of the above cited portion as a different conclusion, it is unfair that the excess portion is unfair, and therefore, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted only for the above revoked portion, and the remainder shall be dismissed as well as the remainder shall be without merit, and it shall be so decided as per Disposition by the application of Articles 89, 92, and 96 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Kim Hong (Presiding Justice)