Where the right of another person is traded, the scope of the obligation to reinstate due to the cancellation of the sales contract.

In the case of sale and purchase of another person's rights, the right of rescission of a sales contract which the buyer exercises is a kind of right of statutory rescission, and there is no special provision about the scope of the obligation of restitution arising from the effect of the exercise.

Articles 570 and 548-2 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Appointed Party)

Appointors 1 and 3 others

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee-at-law

Seoul High Court Decision 73Na558 delivered on August 17, 1973

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the provisions of Article 570 of the Civil Code, in the event that the right which has become the object of sale belongs to another person, the buyer can rescind the contract if the right cannot be acquired by the seller and transferred to the buyer. In this case, the buyer's right of rescission is a kind of right of statutory rescission, and there is no special provision about the scope of duty of restoration arising from the effect of the exercise of the right. Thus, in this case, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of duty of restoration arising from the termination of the contract under Article 570 of the Civil Code. Under the same opinion of the court below, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of duty of restoration arising from the termination of the contract under Article 570 of the Civil Code of this case.

Justices Lee Byung-ho (Presiding Justice)