[1] Whether the buyer's right to claim compensation for damages based on defect security is subject to extinctive prescription (affirmative), and the starting point of the extinctive prescription (=when the buyer takes delivery of the object of sale)

[2] In a case where a real estate purchaser claimed damages against a seller based on a warranty against defects, the case holding that the claim for damages based on a warranty against a buyer's defects had already been extinguished since the buyer filed a lawsuit after the lapse of ten years from the date of delivery of the real estate

[1] The purpose of Article 582 of the Civil Act is to apply to a claim for damages arising from a defect security against a seller, and this is to promote prompt stability in legal relations. However, in light of the content, nature, and purport of the right, the provision of extinctive prescription under Article 162(1) of the Civil Act applies to a buyer’s claim for damages arising from a defect security, and the provision of extinctive prescription under Article 582(1) of the Civil Act cannot be deemed excluded due to the provision of the exclusion period under Article 582 of the Civil Act, and it is reasonable to interpret that extinctive prescription shall run from the time the buyer takes over

[2] In a case where Party A purchased Party B, etc. and completed the registration of ownership transfer, and Party B filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages equivalent to the disposal costs after treating the wastes buried in the real estate underground, and Party A paid damages to Party B, etc. according to the above judgment, and Party B claimed compensation for the money paid to Party B, etc. as a compensation for warranty liability, the case holding that Party A’s claim for damages based on the defect warranty continues with the extinctive prescription from the date of registration of ownership transfer, which appears that Party A would have received the real estate from Party B, etc., and Party A filed a lawsuit after the lapse of 10 years therefrom, and thus Party A had already expired the extinctive prescription.

[1] Articles 162(1), 580, and 582 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 162(1), 580, and 582 of the Civil Act

Korea Land and Housing Corporation (Attorney Cho Sung-sung, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

1. A person who is responsible for the management of the company, and is responsible for the management of the company, and is responsible for the management of the company, and is responsible for the management of the company.

Gwangju High Court Decision 2010Na3451 decided December 22, 2010

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The purpose of Article 582 of the Civil Act is to apply to a claim for damages arising from a defect security against a seller. This is to promote prompt stability in legal relations. However, in light of the content, nature, and purport of the right, the provision of extinctive prescription of a claim under Article 162(1) of the Civil Act shall apply to a buyer’s claim for damages arising from a defect security. In this case, the provision of extinctive prescription of a claim under Article 582(1) of the Civil Act shall not be excluded due to the provision of the exclusion period under Article 582 of the Civil Act, barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to interpret that the buyer will continue to apply the

According to the facts established by the court below and evidence, the Korea Land Corporation (the plaintiff) comprehensively succeeded to the above Samsung 2's property and bonds and debts on October 1, 2009, and the plaintiff et al. (the plaintiff et al. "the plaintiff et al.") was 600,000,000 won of Samsung 1 and 60,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00,000,00,00,00).

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages on the basis of the defect security in this case’s case’s damages from the non-party company and the deceased’s delivery of the real estate in this case’s period from September 14, 1998 to October 16, 198. Since it is evident in the record that the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit in this case’s claim against the non-party company and the remaining Defendants from August 7, 2009 when ten years have passed thereafter, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on the Plaintiff’s defect security liability has already expired before the lawsuit in this case’s lawsuit. Although it is appropriate for the lower court to have determined that the extinctive prescription will run from July 21, 1998 to August 29, 198, the lower court’s above error did not affect the conclusion of the judgment, as long as the extinctive prescription has expired based on the time the Plaintiff’s claim for damages based on the Plaintiff’s defect security liability period was delivered.

In addition, the ground of appeal that there was an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the establishment of tort on the premise of facts established by the court below or on the premise of facts different from the facts established by the court below is merely criticisming the selection of evidences and the recognition of facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below, which is the fact

Therefore, all appeals are 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)