[1] The specific degree of the object and the amount as the elements for establishing a sales contract

[2] The case denying the establishment of a sales contract on the ground that the object of the sale was not specified

[1] In a sales contract, the object and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient to establish the method and standards to specify it in detail ex post facto.

[2] The object of a sales contract is "the whole real estate owned by the non-party 77-7, 754-6, 781-15, and in addition, the whole real estate owned by the non-party 77-7, 754-6, 781-15, and the same location of the object of the sales contract" and there is no indication of whether the remaining real estate, excluding three parcels specified among the objects of the sales contract, is land or a building, if the land is a parcel, lot, lot number, land category, area, building area, etc. is a building, and the parties at the time of the sales contract did not know of some real estate or any other real estate, and if the location of the real estate remains 17 years after the date of the contract, the sale and purchase of the remaining real estate except the three parcels specified among such objects is too abstract, so it cannot be deemed that the sale contract has been established since the sale contract established.

[1] Article 563 of the Civil Code

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Da4947 delivered on February 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 437) (Gong1993Ha, 19999)

Lee Sung-sung (Law Firm Dongi, Attorneys Park Dong-dong, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Topographical case (Attorney Yoon Il-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 95Na5165 delivered on May 3, 1996

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

In a sales contract, the object and the price are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient if the method and standards to specify it ex post facto are established (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2454 delivered on February 11, 1986, Supreme Court Decision 92Da4947 delivered on June 8, 1993).

However, as the court below has duly decided, the object of the sales contract of this case is "three parcels of land, 747-7, 754-6, 784-15, 781-15, and all other real estate owned by the non-party except three parcels of land in this case, and there is no indication of whether the remaining real estate, excluding the specific three parcels of land, is land or a building, if the land is land, the parcel, lot number, land category, area, building is located, and any real estate, such as the location, structure, and area of the building, and the parties did not know of what real estate had been located at the time of the contract. If the sale and purchase of the remaining real estate except three parcels of land in this case, which were specified in this case, is too abstract, so it cannot be deemed that the sales contract was established after the sale contract was established, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the contract or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the above.

2. On the second ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is clear that the judgment of the court below on the extinctive prescription is an additional judgment, and as seen in the above paragraph (1) above, insofar as the judgment that the contract of this case was not concluded is justifiable, the ground of appeal that there was a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the validity of the contract of this case and the starting point of the extinctive prescription, or an error of violating the rules

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)