(a) Where a sales contract is concluded with the erroneous knowledge of a part of land in the whole subject matter of sale, the subject matter of sale;

B. The case holding that even if the purchase price was determined without fixing the ordinary price, it is reasonable to deem that the sale is the sale to be the quantity designated.

A. Where one or several parcels of land are indicated in a sales contract as the subject matter of sale and purchase, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to regard the subject matter of sale and purchase as the whole of the parcel of land, barring special circumstances. Even if a trading party entered into a sales contract with the fence, etc. mistakenly known a part of the land, which is de facto bordered with fence, etc. to the whole subject matter of sale and purchase at the time of the sale and purchase, it cannot be said that only such part of land within

B. Even if the sale price was not determined on the basis of the ordinary price, or the sale price was determined on a comprehensive basis without setting the sale price according to the subject matter of sale, it is reasonable to view that the sale price is the sale to be determined in a case where the purchaser concluded the sale contract with the belief that a certain quantity exists, and the seller explicitly or implicitly indicated that the sale price was a certain quantity, and where the sale price was determined on the basis of such quantity.

(b)Article 563 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2344 Decided November 12, 1985

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and 2 Defendants, et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju High Court Decision 85Na147 delivered on May 23, 1986

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.

The court below determined the following facts: (a) pursuant to the above 3-meter contract between the defendants and the above 422.8 square meters in total of the five lots of land and the above 1.15 million won in cash; (b) the remaining gold 500 million won is mixed with the sale and purchase of the above 162 square meters in Gwangju City ( Address 1 omitted) and the above 162-meter transfer of the above ground buildings; (c) the defendants performed all obligations under the above 3-meter contract; (d) as a result of surveying the above 3-meter of the above 13-meter area of the above 4-meter land, the plaintiff used the above 9-meter market area of the above 2-meter land to be included in the sale and purchase of the above 3-meter land; and (e) the plaintiff's actual area of the above 101.2 meters in total as well as the real area of the above 3-meter area of the building site is insufficient to determine the sale and purchase of the above 9-meter.

However, barring special circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the above real estate is subject to sale and purchase agreement as the whole, barring special circumstances. Even if the parties involved in the sale and purchase agreement with fences, etc., it cannot be viewed that only the part of the land within the fence is subject to sale and purchase agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2344, Nov. 12, 1985). Also, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, it is reasonable to view that the above part of the purchase and sale agreement as the sale and purchase price of the above real estate was determined based on the sale and purchase price of the above real estate, and that the sale and purchase price of the above real estate was determined based on the sale and purchase price of the above real estate, and that the above part of the sale and purchase agreement was determined based on the sale and purchase price of the above real estate, and that the sale and purchase price of the above real estate was determined based on the sale and purchase price of the above real estate as stated in the above agreement, it is reasonable to deem that the above part of the defendants's sales and sale and purchase price of the above.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the contract of this case was not designated by quantity, but is a sale as to only the portion in possession of the Defendants, is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the seller's liability for warranty in a case where it is erroneous in the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, or the object of sale with designated quantity is insufficient. This constitutes a ground for reversal under Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Therefore, the appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)