2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, at the time of entering into the instant transfer contract, the Defendant did not submit the sales data of the instant private teaching institute, thereby committing deception by implied or omission to the Plaintiff.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is difficult to recognize that the Defendant was obligated to submit the sales data of the instant private teaching institute to the Plaintiff during the process of concluding the instant transfer contract, and it is also difficult to view that the Plaintiff either caused a misunderstanding concept about the terms of the contract or strengthened maintenance due to the failure to submit the Defendant’s sales data.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the failure to submit sales data could not be viewed as the defendant's deception, and that the defendant made a specific deception against the plaintiff.

B. The condition of determination on the assertion for the fulfillment of the condition for rescission is the declaration of intent itself, which forms a whole of the effective intent in the juristic act, and accordingly must be indicated externally in the content of the juristic act, as the subsidiary officer of the juristic act dependent on the nature of an uncertain fact in the future.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da30349 Decided October 27, 2000, etc.). In addition, there may be cases where the interpretation of a declaration of intent is applicable to whether specific facts constitute the fulfillment of the conditions attached to a certain juristic act. However, it is a matter of fact-finding as to which the condition attached to a certain juristic act is attached, and the person who asserts the existence of the condition must prove it.

Supreme Court Decision 2006Da3576 Decided November 24, 2006