In cases where a transfer registration of ownership of the previous land has been completed due to a contract for sale of land scheduled for substitution, and there is no special agreement to exclude the liquidation money to be granted from the object of sale at the time of the contract for sale, whether the right to the liquidation money granted is also included

Where a transfer registration of ownership of the previous land has been made due to the sale and purchase of the land at the stage of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution, there is a difference between the area of right and the land scheduled for substitution, and unless there is any special agreement between the parties to exclude the liquidation money to be paid with respect to the land determined as the object of sale, it is reasonable to view that all rights and duties

Articles 105, 568, 57, and 62 of the Civil Act

Attorney Lee Jae-in, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Park Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na10645 delivered on June 22, 1990

The part of the lower judgment against the Defendant’s failure is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

Defendant 1’s ground of appeal

The court below determined that on April 22, 1988, which was originally owned by the plaintiff, 197 3,332 square meters of the above land scheduled for substitution was 1,123.3 square meters of the right area, 80.1 square meters of the right area is planned for delivery and liquidation, and the remaining 1,040 square meters of the total 6 lots of 61 piece of land in the same rearrangement zone were 1,043 square meters of the total 1,043.2 square meters of the above land scheduled for substitution, and the above 600 square meters of the above 1,043.2 square meters of the above land scheduled for substitution were not issued to the plaintiff at 1,332 square meters of the above land scheduled for substitution, and that the above 1,300,043 square meters of the above 1,410,2400 square meters of the previous land to be delivered to the plaintiff at 80,000 square meters of the land scheduled for substitution.

The lower court seems to have determined that the 1043.2 square meters of the land scheduled for replotting, excluding the 80.1 square meters of the land scheduled for delivery and liquidation among the previous land, falls under the object of sale in this case, by focusing on the entry of the sales contract (proof No. 2) in which the price (315.57 x 1.3 million won) calculated by multiplying the area of the previous land to be reserved for sale by the usual amount between the parties to the sale and purchase, constitutes the object of sale in this case. However, if the above sales contract is examined, the lot number and pointed out of the previous land shall be stated in the indication column of the real estate, and in particular, when the Defendant registers the transfer of ownership of the previous land in the contract, the Plaintiff constructed the house of

In light of the fact that various commitments, such as the establishment of rights, but no special agreement is made on the settlement money to be paid, it is difficult to deem that the subject matter of the sale in this case is only the pre-sale land and the pre-sale land is excluded from the pre-sale land.

If there is a sale of land at the stage of the designation of the land scheduled for substitution and the ownership transfer registration of the previous land has been made, if there is a difference between the area of the right and the land scheduled for substitution, it is reasonable to view that the parties concerned have determined all the rights and duties concerning the previous land as the object of sale, unless there is any special agreement between the parties to exclude the liquidation money to be paid for the ordinary

The judgment of the court below is justified as it points out this point of view, since the judgment of the court below is erroneous by misunderstanding the judgment of evidence on the disposition document and thereby affecting the judgment.

Therefore, without proceeding to decide on other grounds of appeal, the part against the defendant among the judgment below is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)