The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

(a) The impossibility of performance of an obligation is not simply absolute and physical impossibility, but also cases where the obligee cannot expect the realization of the obligor’s performance in light of the empirical rules or the concept of transaction in social life;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da14616, Jul. 26, 1996). In addition, even if a seller, who is obligated to transfer a real estate to a buyer, completes the registration of transfer to another person, the seller’s ownership of the real estate can be deemed to have reached the status of nonperformance of the buyer’s obligation to transfer the ownership, unless there are special circumstances that enable the buyer to restore the registration of transfer to the buyer.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da99129 Decided April 29, 2010, etc.). B.

The judgment below

According to the reasoning and duly admitted evidence, the following facts are revealed.

(1) C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) changed its trade name to “D” on July 13, 2007; hereinafter “C”) entered into an offer supply contract (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on May 6, 2005, stipulating that the supply price (sale price) was KRW 873 billion, and KRW 350 million, and KRW 300,000,000,000,000, which included the following contents in the contract (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(A) Article 3(1) of the instant contract provides that “At the time of sale in this case, the above units and recommended types of business (ASP) will be entered into preferentially.”

(B) Article 10 of the instant contract provides that “The amount of subscription (investment)” referred to in Paragraph (2) below, under the title of “matters under special agreement,” shall be KRW 20% (70 million) at the time of sale.