매매대금반환
1. The claim of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to purchase the second floor detached housing in Gwangju City (hereinafter “instant real estate”) at KRW 550 million (hereinafter “instant contract”) and paid 55 million in total as down payment.
B. There is a transmission tower at a place less than 150 meters away from the instant real property.
C. On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content, including the intent to cancel the instant contract.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff revoked the instant contract on the grounds of mistake in motive, and sought the return of the paid down payment.
In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the declaration of intent, and it is deemed sufficient to conclude that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, and it is also necessary to conclude that there is an agreement between the parties to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da516, Nov. 21, 1995). However, the error in the contents of the juristic act should be about the important part to the extent that it would have been deemed that the ordinary general public would not have made such a declaration of intent if
(See Supreme Court Decision 93Da55487 delivered on March 26, 1996). However, when the error was caused by a serious negligence of the switter, the 'serious negligence' refers to a lack of attention that is ordinarily required in light of the occupation, type, purpose, etc. of the switter.
(See Supreme Court Decision 94Da25964 delivered on July 26, 1996, see Supreme Court Decision 94Da25964 delivered on July 26, 199).