(a) The case holding that the employer is liable to the bank where an employee of the bank which vicariously executes the selection of apartment applicants loses the right to purchase and sell housing within a fixed period because he/she failed to conclude the sales contract by electronically computerized inputs of the names of the applicants for parcelling-out and announces the

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below as to the damages suffered by the applicant for parcelling-out in the above Paragraph A, on the ground that there was an error of law as to active damages, which are the exchange value of the right of parcelling-out itself at the time of loss of the right of parcelling-out, and did not judge the passive damages that could not have acquired by the right of parcelling

A. The case holding that, in case where an employee of the bank which vicariously executes the selection of applicants for parcelling-out has lost the right to buy-out because the number of applicants for parcelling-out has been lost due to the erroneous input of the names of applicants for parcelling-out and publication of the wrong names, and the winner has failed to conclude the sales contract within a fixed period, the bank should accurately enter the basic matters necessary for specifying the applicants' names, etc. in receipt of the application for parcelling-out, and the bank has a duty of care to accurately check their names, etc. and publicly announce the list of applicants, and as the bank employees neglected to do so, the bank, the employer of the above employees, is liable for damages.

B. The case reversing the judgment of the court below on the ground that there was an error of law as to active damages not asserted by the court below as to passive damages, on the ground that the court below did not judge as to passive damages, although it is obvious that the applicant for parcelling-out did not claim the active damages incurred by the loss of the right to parcel out, which are the exchange value of the above right to parcel out at the time of loss of the right to parcel out, but the loss of the right to parcel out is the passive damages that could not have been acquired by the right to parcel out, and the apartment

A. Article 756(b) of the Civil Act, Article 763, (Article 399), Article 188 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Korea Housing and Commercial Bank (Attorney Jeong Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na46903 delivered on October 25, 1991

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

1. The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal and the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal are also examined.

(1) 원심판결 이유에 의하면 원심은 원고가 1987.11.23. 피고 한국주택은행(이하 피고 은행이라고 한다) 서교동 지점과 2,000,000원의 주택청약 정기예금(이하 청약예금이라고 한다) 계약을 체결하고 6개월이 경과됨으로써 주택건설사업체가 서울시내 일원에 건축하는 14평형 내지 34평형의 민영아파트 1순위 입주신청자격을 획득한 사실, 원고를 대리한 소외 1은 1988.12.21. 소외 현대산업개발주식회사가 서울 강동구 (주소 생략)외 41필지상에 건축, 분양하는 ○○○○아파트 17.9평형에 대하여 그 아파트 입주자 선정업무를 대행하는 피고 은행 서교동 지점에 분양신청을 하면서 만약 원고가 위 아파트의 당첨자로 선정되면 금 2,160,000원의 제2종 국민주택채권을 매입하기로 피고와 약정한 사실, 피고는 컴퓨터 추첨에 의하여 위 채권의 다액매입약정자 순으로 위 아파트의 입주자를 선정함과 동시에 동, 호수를 결정하며, 입주자로 당첨되는 자는 미리 약정한 액수의 위 국민채권을 매입하고위 소외회사와 분양계약을 체결하여 위 아파트에 관한 분양대금을 납부한 후 위 아파트가 완공되어 건축물 관리대장상에 등재되면 그 당첨된 아파트의 소유권이전등기를 경료받게 되어 있었던 사실, 그런데 컴퓨터에 원고를 포함한 청약대상자 명단을 입력시킬 때 피고 은행 서교동지점 직원이 부주의로 컴퓨터 단말기에 원고의 이름인 원고를 ‘소외 2’로 잘못 입력하고 그 뒤 그 착오를 발견하여 시정하는 조치를 취하지 아니함으로써 피고는 1988.12.23. 위 아파트 당첨자 명단을 공고하면서 그 당첨자 명단의 성명란에 원고의 이름을 소외 2로 잘못 기재하여 발표한 사실, 그후 원고를 대신하여 소외 1이 위 당첨자 명단에서 원고의 당첨여부를 확인하였으나 원고의 이름을 발견하지 못하여 위 사실을 전해들은 원고는 위 아파트 추첨에서 낙첨된 것으로 알고 같은 달 29., 30. 양일간 체결하게 되어 있던 위 아파트의 분양계약을 체결하지 아니함으로써 원고는 아파트 입주자 선정추첨에 당첨된 후 계약을 포기한자로 인정되어 이 아파트를 분양받지 못한 사실을 인정한 다음, 주택건설촉진법 및 주택공급에 관한 규칙 등의 관계규정에 의하면 이 사건과 같은 아파트 분양의 경우 원고와 같이 분양신청을 하여 당첨된 자는 사업주체에게 아파트의 특정부분에 관한 매매계약의 체결을 청구하여 계약을 체결함으로써 이를 우선적으로 분양받을 권리(이하 수분양권이라 부른다)를 갖게 되고 이러한 권리는 소정기일에 이를 행사하여 계약을 체결하지 않으면 소멸되는 것이므로, 피고와 같이 아파트 입주자 선정업무를 대행하는 자로서는 입주자의 선정 및 공고에 착오가 있어 정당하게 당첨된 자가 이를 알지 못하여 소정기일에 매매계약을 체결하지 못함으로써 그 수분양권을 상실하는 일이 생기지 않도록 분양신청을 접수함에 있어서는 신청인의 성명 등 그를 특정함에 필요한 기본사항을 정확히 컴퓨터에 입력하여야 하고, 당첨자를 공고함에 있어서도 그 성명 등을 다시 대조 확인하여 정확히 당첨자 명단을 공고하여야 할 업무상 주의의무가 있는데도, 피고 은행 서교동지점 직원들은 이를 게을리 하여 원고에게 앞에서 본 바와 같이 수분양권을 상실하는 손해를 입게 하였으므로 위 소외인들의 사용자인 피고 은행은 원고의 손해를 배상할 의무가 있다 고 판단하고, 나아가 원고가 입은 손해액에 관하여, 원고가 위 아파트의 수분양권을 상실함으로써 입은 손해는 특별한 사정이 없는 한 원고가 위 수분양권을 상실한 손해를 입은 1988.12.30. 당시의 그 수분양권 자체의 교환가치 상당이라 할 것이고, 그 수분양권의 교환가치는 당시에 그것이 거래의 대상이 되지 않아 시가가 형성될 수 없었으므로 위 아파트 인근에 있는 동일한 수준, 동일한 면적의 신축아파트의 시가에서 위 아파트의 분양대금과 원고 스스로 공제를 주장하는 위 아파트에 대한 원고의 채권매입 약정금액 2,160,000원을 공제한 차액 상당액이라 할 것인데, 그 거시증거에 의하면 위 아파트 인근에 있는 동일한 다른 아파트의 시가가 위 아파트의 분양대금(22,699,000원)보다 15,000,000원 정도 비쌌던 사실을 인정할 수 있으므로, 원고가 입은 손해액은 결국 12,840,000원(15,000,000원 - 2,160,000원)이 된다고 판단하였다.

(2) However, the court below judged the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the loss of the right to purchase the unit of this case as the exchange value of the above right at the time of the loss of the right to purchase the unit of this case shall be assessed as positive damages, and in this case, the plaintiff does not claim such active damages, but it is obvious that the plaintiff asserted the value after deducting the purchase price from the price of the apartment to be completed, as it is the passive damages that the plaintiff could not acquire the ownership of the apartment that could have acquired due to the loss of the right to purchase the unit of this case due to the loss of the right to purchase the unit of this case, and therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiff asserted the value of the apartment to be completed

In addition, the court below's finding the market price of the apartment in this case as evidence at the time of the loss of the above right to purchase the apartment in this case is the testimony of the non-party 1 as the witness of the court of first instance. According to the records, the above non-party 1 is the plaintiff's relative relative and was engaged in the act such as the application for purchase in this case on behalf of the plaintiff, and the testimony was made in the near dune bank near the plaintiff, and it cannot be said that its credibility is uncertain since it is nothing more than the specialized contents. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is erroneous.

All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are justified.

2. We examine the remaining grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney.

As seen above, the court below found the defendant liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the defendant's tort, and found that the above ○○ apartment unit was one of two households with the 17.9 square meters apartment units applied for parcelling-out by the plaintiff, and the list of the winners of the above apartment unit announced by the defendant is not only the name of the winner but also the number of the subscription deposit, resident registration number, and the reputation of the apartment unit applied for parcelling-out. The only name of the plaintiff was mistakenly stated, and the remaining portion was stated. The non-party 1, who is the relative of the plaintiff due to poor body, confirmed the plaintiff's subscription deposit and the purchase of the above apartment unit on behalf of the plaintiff. The above non-party 1 confirmed the name column of the above winner's list, and did not examine the remaining matters stated in the list of the above winners' names. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's resident registration number was accurately stated in the above 17.9 square type of apartment unit, and the plaintiff's name was confirmed as the plaintiff's name or the non-party 1's fault.

Upon examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, we agree with the above fact-finding and judgment of the court below. The theory that, like the theory of lawsuit, Nonparty 1, who substituted the plaintiff, could have discovered that the name of the plaintiff was wrong if he had carefully examined the list of winners, was not liable for damages to the defendant. There is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for liability for damages, such as theory of lawsuit. In addition, in light of the facts established by the court below, the court below recognized the plaintiff's negligence on the part of the defendant and determined the ratio of negligence by 20:80 is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence or the comparison of two parties' negligence, such as theory of lawsuit.

In addition, even if the plaintiff's subscription qualification and order of subscription were restored like the theory, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff's damage was compensated only by this, so the judgment of the same purport is just, and the theory on the premise that the plaintiff's damage was lost by trust is merely an independent opinion, and the above judgment of the court below does not contain an error of law regarding the interpretation of the damage, such as theory of lawsuit. All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, we reverse and remand the judgment of the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)