Where a contract becomes null and void due to its original impossibility, whether one party who was negligent in the conclusion of the contract can assume the other party's liability for negligence in the conclusion of the contract (negative)

Where a contract becomes null and void due to its original impossibility, the party who was negligent in concluding the contract shall be liable for damages incurred therefrom, but even in such cases, if one party knew or could have known the impossibility of the contract, he/she shall not be held liable for the negligence in concluding the

Article 535 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court of First Instance (85 Ghana9823)

The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,500,000 won with interest rate of 25 percent per annum from the day following the service of a duplicate of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs are assessed against all of the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

On April 4, 1985, the plaintiff ordered the defendant to build a prefabricated-type house with a prefabricated 57.6 square meters in 179 square meters in Magdong-dong 179 on the Magdong-dong-dong 177.6 square meters, and agreed to the construction period of KRW 4,000, advance payment of KRW 150,000, and payment of KRW 1,500,000 for each contract date from April 20, 1985 to the defendant from April 30, 1985, and there is no dispute between the parties, and the witness non-party 1's testimony made an application for the above house building permit to the Magdong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-Appellee-Appellee-Appellee-based-Appellee-Appellee-based-based.

Therefore, the above construction work contract is a contract for the purpose of providing benefits on the land on which the construction of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory is prohibited from the construction of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, which is a contract for the purpose of providing benefits to which the legitimate realization is impossible by social norms, and thus becomes null and void in the original impossibility. Therefore, the above advance payment of KRW 1,500,000 which the defendant received from

Accordingly, on April 13, 1985, in order to faithfully implement the above construction contract with the plaintiff, the defendant paid to the non-party 1 the construction cost of the above prefabricatedd Housing in KRW 3,800,000, and paid the non-party 1 the down payment in KRW 2,000,000 to the non-party 1 and prepared all materials, etc. required for the above construction work. Since the plaintiff's default and unilateral termination of contract cannot be conducted, the defendant also suffered losses from the loss of the right to claim the return of KRW 2,00,000 due to the non-party 1's default. Accordingly, the defendant is obligated to compensate the defendant for the above damages caused to the plaintiff due to the non-party 1's default, and the defendant asserts that the damages claim of KRW 2,00,000 against the plaintiff is offset against the plaintiff's right to claim the return of the advance payment of this case against the defendant.

However, it is possible to conclude a contract without justifiable reasons only when the contract for compensation for damages is concluded with the owner of the building project, and there is no room for doubt that the contract becomes null and void from the beginning as in this case. However, even if the above contract becomes null and void from the original impossibility, it seems that the defendant can ask the plaintiff to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff by signing the construction contract with the owner of the building project without any justifiable reason, and the defendant's assertion that the above construction contract would be valid, and that the plaintiff would not be held liable for damages under the principle of trust and good faith even if he knew that the above construction site would be invalid from the original impossibility. According to the first sentence of Article 535 (1) of the Civil Act, if the plaintiff knew or could not be held liable for damages due to the non-party 1's non-party 4's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 3's fault.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay at the rate of 25 percent per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from Sep. 11, 1985 to the full payment date on the record that it is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the protocol of lawsuit in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in this case is justified, and the judgment below is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Znwon (Presiding Judge) Roster