Where it is impossible to perform due to the sale of another person's right, the scope of damage that the seller is liable for;

In principle, the scope of damages to be compensated by the seller shall be extended to the performance profit, and the ordinary damages in such case shall be equivalent to the objective market price of the object at the time of impossibility of performance. However, if the object of sale is sold in sequence and the amount of compensation to the buyer is less than the above objective market price, only the amount of compensation paid by the seller shall

Article 570 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 75Da21 Decided May 13, 1975 (Article 570(8) of the Civil Act, Article 570(8)464 of the Civil Act, Article 517 of the court bulletin 517 of the court bulletin 8511 of the Civil Act), Article 77Da1048 Decided December 13, 197 (Daod 11639 of the Supreme Court Decision, Article 2530 of the Civil Act, Article 570(9)464 of the Civil Act, Article 579 of the court bulletin 5750 of the court bulletin)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul Civil History District Court (80 Gohap35)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiffs an amount of KRW 21,340,00 and an annual amount of KRW 5 percent from the next day of service to the day of full payment.

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

The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

The plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiffs in the first and second instances.

According to the above evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, Gap evidence Nos. 5-1 to 3, Gap evidence Nos. 6, Gap evidence Nos. 7-1 to 9, and Gap evidence Nos. 3 which are acknowledged to be genuine by non-party Nos. 1's testimony and pleading, the plaintiffs' purchase of the above evidence Nos. 1 to 435 (hereinafter referred to as this case's land omitted) was known to the defendant Nos. 1 to 30 of the above case's purchase price Nos. 1 to 40 of the above case's non-party Nos. 1 to 20 of the above case's purchase price Nos. 1 to 30 of the above case's non-party No. 2 of the above case's purchase price No. 1 to 30 of the above case's non-party No. 97 of this case's purchase price, and the plaintiff's sale price No. 2 to the non-party No. 97 of this case's. 97 of this case's.

The defendant asserts that the above performance situation is not caused by the defendant's intentional or negligent act, and therefore, in the case of this case where the seller's ownership cannot be transferred by the sale of another person's right, the defendant's claim is groundless since the seller's warranty liability to the bona fide buyer is a law that occurs regardless of the existence of the seller's cause.

Therefore, as to the amount of damages, in principle, the scope of damages that the seller is liable to compensate for to the buyer due to the impossibility of performance in the sale of another person's right, is equivalent to the objective market price of the object at the time of performance impossibility. However, as in the case of this case, if the object of sale was sold in sequential order as to the object of sale, and then the seller claims damages against the buyer who left the real owner who left the real owner's right, the amount of compensation for the buyer is less than the above objective market price, only the amount of compensation shall be deemed to be the amount of damages. Accordingly, the plaintiffs' damages shall be deemed to be 15,00,000 won as the above amount of compensation actually paid to the above non-party, and since the plaintiffs purchased the real property of this case from the defendant and sold it to the above non-party, the defendant's assertion that this amount should be deducted from the above amount cannot be accepted.

However, the defendant also did not know that the land was lost property at the time of the purchase by the plaintiffs, and even if the land was State-owned after the purchase and sale contract for the land of this case and all of the contract was impossible, the non-party who purchased the land of this case from the plaintiffs gain profits from holding the right of preference. If the registered title of this case is restored to the defendant's name, it would be improper for the plaintiffs to claim for the whole amount of compensation to the above non-party without taking such measures, and thus, it is unreasonable for the plaintiffs to take such circumstances into account in determining the limit of the defendant's liability for damages. However, there is no evidence to prove that there was negligence against the plaintiffs at the time of the purchase and sale contract for the land of this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the above non-party or the defendant had the right of appeal on the land of this case as alleged by the defendant. Thus, the above argument of the defendant is without merit.

In this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the above 15,00,000 won and the damages for delay in civil law at the rate of 5% per annum from January 29, 1980 to the full payment system, which is obvious from the day following the delivery date of the copy so that the plaintiffs seek as the above damages after the above compensation date. Thus, the plaintiffs' claims for delay in civil law are justified within the above recognition scope and they are dismissed as the remainder is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just and without merit, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed, and the costs for appeal are assessed against the defendant who has lost. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Lee Han-young (Presiding Judge)