[1] The due date for the obligation to transfer ownership registration in a case where the sales price is paid in full while selling a store of a commercial building and the ownership is to be transferred immediately after the completion of the construction of the building

[2] The scope of property damage suffered by the buyer where the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the buyer is delayed for a long time

[3] In a case where it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage caused by delay in the implementation of the procedure for transfer of ownership for a long time, whether the court may determine the amount of damage by taking into account the indirect facts revealed by the results of investigation of evidence and

[1] In a case where the sales price is paid in full and the public book rearrangement after the completion of the building is agreed to transfer the ownership immediately after the completion of the building, it shall be deemed that an agreement was reached by setting the due date not for the fixed deadline but for the registration of transfer of ownership to the said store. In light of the progress of the construction work and the socioeconomic circumstances, it shall be deemed that the period during which the sale price is fully paid and the sale price is expected to be required for the inspection for use and the registration of preservation of ownership from the date of completion of the building.

[2] In a case where the implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership to a buyer of a buyer is delayed for a long time, the buyer shall be deemed to have suffered damage that could not completely exercise his/her property right, and in light of the transaction situation of surrounding real estate, if it is acknowledged that there is probability that the buyer, etc. suffered damage, such as loss of the opportunity to utilize, etc., due to the delay in the registration procedure, it shall be deemed that the ordinary damage caused by the delay in the registration procedure.

[3] In a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages due to nonperformance, where it is deemed that the occurrence of property damage has occurred, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, such as the relationship between the parties as revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of all pleadings, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage due to nonperformance, the nature of damage, and the circumstances after the occurrence of damage. Thus, in a case where it is difficult to calculate property damage caused by prolonged implementation of the procedure for registration of transfer of ownership based on the objective data of

[1] Articles 105, 152, and 387(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 390 and 393 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da7936 decided Nov. 28, 200 (Gong2001Sang, 149) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968 decided Jun. 24, 2004 (Gong2004Ha, 1201)

Plaintiff

Defendant Housing Association (Attorney 0000)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2004Na20851 Decided March 30, 2006

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

In a case where the sales price of a commercial building is fully paid and the ownership is transferred immediately after the completion of the construction of the building, the agreement for the registration of ownership transfer with respect to the said store shall be deemed to have been reached by the due date, not the due date, but the due date for the registration of ownership transfer. In light of the progress of the construction work and the social and economic circumstances, the sale price shall be fully paid and the due date shall be deemed to have arrived when the reasonable and reasonable period, which is anticipated to be required for the inspection for use and registration of ownership preservation, has elapsed from the date of completion of the building (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da7936, Nov. 28, 200

After compiling the evidence adopted in its decision, the court below found facts as stated in its decision, and held that the defendant union obtained a provisional use approval for the commercial building of this case, and the plaintiff paid the sale price for the first floor of this case on September 7, 1995 and around September 7, 1996, when about 1 year passed since September 7, 1995, the plaintiff paid the sale price for the first floor of this case, the obligation to transfer ownership to the plaintiff of the defendant union was due. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the due date of the obligation to transfer ownership or in the violation of the rules of evidence, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. In addition, the judgment of the court below that recognized the defendant union's liability to compensate for damages, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the due date of the obligation to transfer ownership or in the violation of the rules of evidence. Thus, the judgment

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The main text of Article 390 of the Civil Act provides that “If an obligor fails to perform his/her obligation in accordance with the substance of the obligation, the obligee may claim damages.” The purpose of liability for damages is to recover the status of the obligee if the obligor would have been fully performed, so an obligor who has violated the contract shall compensate for the same economic benefits as the contract was completely performed. Meanwhile, Article 393(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The compensation for damages caused by nonperformance of obligation shall be limited to ordinary damages.” Article 393(2) of the Civil Act provides that “The damages caused by special circumstances shall be limited to where the obligor knew or could have known of the damages.” Article 390(1) provides that “The ordinary damages caused by special circumstances shall be limited to where the obligor knew or could have known of the damages, in light of the ordinary transaction concept or the empirical rule of the society.” Where the implementation of the procedure for registration of ownership transfer is delayed for a long time, damage arising from special circumstances means damage caused by the obligor’s failure to exercise his/her property right completely, and it can be acknowledged that the cause of delay in the sale.

Meanwhile, in a lawsuit claiming compensation for damages due to nonperformance, where it is deemed that the occurrence of property damage has occurred, but it is difficult to prove the specific amount of damage in light of the nature of the case, the court may determine the amount of damage in proximate causal relation by taking into account all the relevant indirect facts, including the relationship between the parties as revealed by the result of examination of evidence and the purport of pleading, the background leading up to the occurrence of property damage due to nonperformance, the nature of damage, and all the circumstances after the occurrence of damage, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6951, 6968, Jun. 24, 2004). Thus, where it is difficult to calculate the amount of property damage due to the prolonged delay in implementation of the transfer registration procedure based on the objective data of the relevant specific amount of damage, the court of fact-finding may determine it

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant union delayed the implementation of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer for the commercial buildings of this case for a period of eight years or more from the above due date, thereby causing property damage to the purchaser who was the buyer, which could not completely exercise

Although the method of calculating the amount of property damage recognized by the court below is partly inappropriate, this case is deemed to fall under cases where it is difficult to calculate the specific amount of damages based on objective data, so it is acceptable for the court below to recognize the specific amount of damages as the amount as stated in its decision in consideration of all the circumstances. The court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the method of calculating the amount of damages, or in the violation of the rules of evidence. The defendant'

3. Conclusion

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 Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)