The starting point for the calculation of the extinctive prescription of damage claim due to impossibility of performing the obligation to transfer ownership

The damage claim that the buyer acquires against the seller due to the impossibility of the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate due to the sale is generated from the impossibility of the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate, and the extinctive prescription of the above damage claim runs from the time of impossibility of performance of the obligation

Articles 166 and 390 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Han, Attorneys Park Jong-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Attorney Kim Jae-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 89Na6212 delivered on June 20, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are examined.

On May 4, 1976, the evidence cited in the judgment below was examined as a result of the records. The plaintiff did not find out any violation of the rules of evidence or any violation of the incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit in the court below's decision, which found that the plaintiff purchased 202 of the 3,444 of the 1939-1 Miscellaneous Dong-dong, Jindong-dong, Jindong-dong, Jindong-dong, Jindong-dong, the defendant-owned on May 4, 1976. The arguments are groundless.

The grounds of appeal No. 2 are examined.

The damage claim that the buyer acquires against the seller due to the impossibility of the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate due to the sale and the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate occurs from the time of the impossibility of the performance of the obligation to transfer the ownership of the real estate, and it does not arise from the date of conclusion of the contract. In the same purport, the court below rejected the defendant's defense that the prescription has expired after the lapse of ten years from May 4, 1976, the date of conclusion of the contract, and there is no error of law such

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

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)