[1] The subject matter of sale for the establishment of a sales contract and its degree of specification

[2] In a case where a contract is entered into between the parties and reserving future agreements on certain matters, the method of determining the content of the contract, and whether such a legal principle applies to the case where the contract is entered into with a reservation in the future (affirmative)

[3] In a case where Gap and Eul's lands adjoin each other, and Eul's lands adjoin each other, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed due to the sale and purchase of the above forest land to Eul, and the head of the competent local government made a report to extend the above forest land, etc. with Eul's owner Eul as Eul's owner, and Gap performed construction work for extending the above forest land on the boundary of stone embankments, and Gap performed construction work for extending the above forest land on the part adjacent to Gap's land on the boundary of stone embankments, the case affirming the judgment below which held that the sales contract between Gap and Eul was established for the part adjacent to Eul's land on the boundary of stone embankments

[1] A sale and purchase becomes effective when one of the parties agrees to transfer a property right to the other party and the other party agrees to pay the price thereof (Article 563 of the Civil Act). A sale and purchase contract is concluded upon agreement between the two parties on the transfer of a seller’s property right and the payment of the price by the buyer. The subject matter and the price of the sale are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient that the method

[2] In a case where the parties reserved future agreements on certain matters in the course of concluding a contract between the parties, if there is an intention to detain the parties to the contract and if there is methods and criteria to specify the details of the contract later, the parties’ intent should be examined in light of the details of the contract, perception, cooking, and empirical rule. This legal doctrine applies even in cases where the purchase price is reserved in the future and the sales contract is concluded.

[3] In a case where Party A and Party B are adjacent to each other, and the ownership transfer registration for the said forest land was completed due to the sale and purchase of the said forest land, and Party B was reported by the head of the competent local government to extend the said forest land, etc. with Party B as the owner of Party B, and Party A performed construction works for extension of detached housing with Party B’s boundary, the case affirming the lower court’s determination that Party B and Party B did not reach an agreement on the construction cost for extension of detached housing with Party B’s land at the time of the transfer registration, in light of the overall circumstances, the portion of the said forest land connected to Party B’s land at the time of entry into a sale and purchase agreement, and the specific object of the sale and purchase agreement should be determined by considering the convenience of Party B, such as lending the name to Party B for the extension of the said forest land, and even if Party B did not reach an agreement on the construction cost and location of the said land at the time of entry into a specific construction agreement on the extension of the building site to Party B’s land and its ownership.

[1] Article 563 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 105 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 105 and 563 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 84Meu2454 delivered on February 11, 1986 (Gong1986, 437) Supreme Court Decision 94Da3432 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 167) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70420, 70437 Delivered on February 22, 2007

Plaintiff (Law Firm Il-sung, Attorneys Jin-hun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2016Na11163 decided May 17, 2017

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Factual basis

The reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveal the following facts.

A. On the west of the site of △△△△△△△ (hereinafter “△△△△△”) located in the Gu-si, Dong-si, △△△△ (hereinafter “△△△△△△”) (number 1 omitted). On the north of the site of △△△△△ (number 1 omitted) and the site of △△△△△△ (number 2 omitted), forests and fields (hereinafter “the instant woodland”). The Defendant purchased the site of △△△△△ (number 2 omitted) and general housing on September 4, 2013, and registered the transfer of ownership thereof. The Plaintiff, as the owner of the instant forest and fields on the site of △△△△△△ (number 1 omitted) and the owner of the instant forest and fields, the Plaintiff newly constructed a farmer’s house on the ground and registered the ownership thereof on October 4, 2013.

B. On February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) sold the instant forest to the Defendant as the grounds for registration; and (b) registered the transfer of ownership (hereinafter “instant ownership transfer”).

C. On May 19, 2015, the old-U.S. Mayor accepted a report to extend a detached house (hereinafter “instant extension report”) on the instant forest land and the site of △△ (number 2 omitted) with the owner of the building as the Defendant.

D. The Plaintiff spent various expenses, such as the cost of civil engineering and design, and the cost of civil engineering and construction, and performed the work of flating the instant forest and the civil engineering and construction for piling stone in the middle of the said work. Of the forest of this case, the part on the same side (hereinafter referred to as “bridge”) with the boundary of the said stone axis is adjacent to the site of △△△-ri (number 1 omitted), the Plaintiff’s ownership, and the part on the lower side (hereinafter referred to as “A part”) adjacent to the site of △△-ri (number 2 omitted) which is the Defendant’s ownership. The Plaintiff conducted construction works for the extension of a detached house only for the two parts.

2. Lower judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was as follows. There were many problems in reporting extension under the Plaintiff’s name with respect to the instant forest. The Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to title trust the instant forest, report extension under the Defendant’s name, and extend the building owned by the Plaintiff. The ownership transfer registration of the instant case is null and void as it is in accordance with a title trust agreement or a false conspiracy agreement. The Defendant is obligated to cancel the registration of ownership transfer of the instant forest, implement the procedure for cancelling the instant extension report

B. The lower court determined as follows. The Plaintiff sold one part of the instant forest land to the Defendant, and agreed with the Defendant to title trust the second part among the instant forest land. The Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of the Plaintiff’s registration cannot be accepted as it was based on a sales contract regarding the part A of the instant forest land transfer registration, and the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of registration is justifiable since it was null and void as it was in accordance with a title trust agreement regarding the part B of the instant forest land transfer registration, and as such, the Plaintiff’s claim for cancellation of registration is justifiable. Since whether to cancel the report

3. Supreme Court Decision

A. Request for cancellation of ownership transfer registration of this case

(1) A sale and purchase becomes effective when one of the parties has agreed to transfer a property right to the other party and the other party has agreed to pay the price thereof (Article 563 of the Civil Act). A sale and purchase contract is concluded upon agreement between the two parties regarding the transfer of a seller’s property right and the payment of the price by the buyer. The subject matter and the price of the sale are not necessarily required to be specified at the time of the conclusion of the contract, and it is sufficient that the method and criteria for specifying the subject matter have been determined later (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 84Da2454, Feb. 11, 1986; 94Da34432, Apr. 26, 199

In the event that parties have reserved future agreements on certain matters in the course of entering into a contract, and the parties have intent to detain the parties in the contract and if there is methods and criteria to specify the details of the contract later in detail, the intent of the parties in light of the details of the contract, recognition, cooking, and empirical rule, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70420, 70437, Feb. 22, 2007). This legal doctrine applies even in cases where the settlement of the purchase price is reserved in the future and the contract is concluded.

(2) According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may be deemed to have agreed upon at the time of the instant transfer registration as follows. The Plaintiff sold part of the forest of this case adjoining to the site of △△△△ (number 2 omitted) owned by the Defendant among the forest of this case. The specific subject matter of sale is specified by the completion of stone construction on the boundary area, and specific proceeds are lower than the market price in consideration of the Defendant’s provision of convenience, such as lending the name of the owner to the Plaintiff for extension, and the specific subject matter of sale is determined by mutual agreement at the specified time of the specific subject matter of sale in the future. The transfer registration is to include the part abutting on the site of △△△

In the event that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not specify the subject matter of sale at the time of the said agreement, they set the method and criteria that can be specified later in detail. The Plaintiff determined the subject matter of sale in the middle of the instant forest by usual coaling operations and by stockpiling stone embankments in the middle of the said agreement, thereby specifying the subject matter of sale, i.e., a part of the subject matter of sale, and performing a contract, including construction works for extension of a detached house only for two parts. As such, there was an intention to be bound by the contract. The Plaintiff and the Defendant reserved to determine the price in the future at the time of the said agreement. Even if the agreement on the price was not reached, the Plaintiff’s intent should be determined in light of the details of the agreement, recognition of the parties, cooking and empirical rule

The lower court is justifiable to have determined that the sales contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding “A” portion of the forest land of this case was established in accordance with the foregoing legal doctrine. In so doing, the lower court did not exhaust all necessary deliberations, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or misapprehending the legal doctrine on

B. Implementation of the procedure to cancel the extension report of this case and request for consent

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the record, the lower court did not err by failing to perform its duty of explanation as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

4. Conclusion

The Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, 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 Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)