[2] In a case where Company A: (a) renounced the degree of 50% of the overdue wages to Company B; (b) and (c) agreed to waive part of the overdue wages after the company normalization; (b) and (c) assuming that Company B would be re-employed, the case holding that even if Company B was not re-employed even after the normalization of Company A, it cannot be deemed that there was an error in the important part of the legal act because there was no expectation of re-employment based on the unpaid perception of Company B

As stipulated under Article 109 of the Civil Act, in order to have an error in declaration of intention, it must be deemed that there is any error in the fact that there was no fact at the time of the juristic act, or that there was no fact that there was no fact, and as such, it is against the perception of the voter and the fact that there was no fact that there was no fact at the time of the act. Thus, in a case where it is discovered that there was an omission in the occurrence of a certain matter in the future at the time of the act by the surveyor and that there was no disagreement between the perception of the psychological state and the fact that there was an omission, it cannot be said that there was an error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2193, Mar. 28, 197; 2009Da94841, May 27, 2010; 2010Da9798, Jun. 9, 2011).

The facts established by the court below are as follows. ① The plaintiff was on June 20, 2009 as an aircraft pilot of the defendant company and retired on June 20, and the defendant company did not pay wages to its employees from August 2008 due to business difficulties, and reached an event of suspension of operation on October 18, 2008. ② The new start-up investment company (the "new start-up investment company" was changed to the "new start-up investment company"; hereinafter referred to as the "new start-up investment company") decided to invest 15 billion won under the premise that the defendant company would go through the rehabilitation procedure, and did not pay only 1/2 of the wages in arrears to the retirement company, and the remaining employees who retired after the discontinuance of the operation of the defendant company were re-employed on an individual basis of 9% agreement between the retirement administrator and the new start-up company on the basis that the new start-up company would not have reached an agreement on the retirement wages in question. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20750, Mar. 20, 19900>

Based on the above facts, the court below determined that the agreement of this case was lawfully revoked in accordance with the plaintiff's declaration of revocation, since the defendant company acted as if the re-employment was conducted as a matter of course even if the defendant company did not expressly agree on the re-employment to the plaintiff in the process of the agreement of this case and was believed to be re-employment and the agreement of this case was reached. The plaintiff did not conclude the agreement of this case if there was no such error. Thus, the plaintiff did not enter into the agreement of this case. Thus, the plaintiff caused an error in the important part of a juristic act and caused a mistake in the part of the other party if the motive mistake was caused by the other party.

However, according to the records in light of the above legal principles, even according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant company was authorized by the rehabilitation plan of the defendant company at the time of the agreement in this case, and the defendant company's normalization would make efforts to re-employment of the retired workers including the plaintiff. Thus, even if the plaintiff agreed upon at the time of the agreement in this case that re-employment should be conducted after the normalization of the defendant company, but the plaintiff did not re-employment by the defendant company after the agreement in this case, it is merely a failure to expect re-employment based on the plaintiff's perception and the incomplete perception of the plaintiff, not a violation of the plaintiff's awareness, but a mistake in the important part of the legal act in this case's agreement in this case.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the agreement of this case was revoked by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of revocation on the premise that the Plaintiff’s belief that the Plaintiff would be re-employed to the Defendant company at the time of the agreement of this case constitutes an error of motive relating to the agreement of this case and constitutes an important part of a juristic act. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining 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 for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)