Where land which is the object of sale is reduced due to a land readjustment project, the standard area for compensation for damages due to impossibility of performing the obligation to transfer ownership.

Even if the area of the site, which is the object of sale, was indicated as 63 squarebeb, 63 square meters in the sales contract, if the land becomes final and conclusive at 60 square meters due to the completion of the land readjustment project, it is reasonable that the court of original judgment should consider the above 60 square meters as the standard in recognizing the seller's liability for damages if the seller's liability for damages is not fulfilled by selling the above site to a third party and completing the registration of ownership transfer,

Article 393 of the Civil Act, Article 62 of the Land Readjustment Projects Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 87Na5391 delivered on November 18, 1988

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Considering the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the fact-finding of the court below is justified and there is no violation of the rules of evidence such as the theory of lawsuit.

In addition, the court below was justified in finding that the land subject to the instant parcelling-out contract [ Address 1 omitted] 63.2 square meters at Sungnam-si ( Address 2 omitted) changed to the land number of 198.2 square meters at 198.2 square meters (number 60 square meters) due to the completion of the land readjustment project, and the defendant sold the said land to the non-party and completed the registration of transfer of ownership, thereby making it impossible for the plaintiff to perform his obligations arising from the instant parcelling-out contract, and the market price of the said land at the time of impossibility of performance is KRW 200,00

In addition, since the land sold by the Defendant to the Plaintiff is a specific site in Sungnam-si ( Address 1 omitted), even if the area of this site was indicated as 63 square meters and Hobbebs in the sales contract (No. 1 omitted), if the land becomes final and conclusive in 60 square meters due to the completion of the land readjustment project, the land that is the subject matter of the sale in this case and the land that the Defendant is to transfer to the Plaintiff is the land of this 60 square meters. Therefore, it is reasonable that the lower court recognized the Defendant’s liability for damages, and it is reasonable to take the land of this 60 square meters on the basis of this 60 square meters (the purchase price was calculated based on this 60 square meters).

In addition, it cannot be said that the No. 7 (a sales contract) of the theory of lawsuit No. 7 cannot be seen that the market price stated in the No. 7 (a judgment) shall not be necessarily adopted.

The grounds for the theory of lawsuit pointing out the arguments are, from its own point of view, attributable to the production of evidence and fact-finding, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, or based on the facts that the court below did not recognize, and there is no reason to criticize the court below

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

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)