채무인수금 지급청구의 소
1. The defendant's appeal and the claim for return of provisional payment are all dismissed.
2. The expenses of filing an application for the return of the provisional payment of the appeal.
The reasons for this Court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are as follows, and the reasons for this Court's acceptance of the judgment of the first instance are the same as the reasons for the first instance judgment, except for adding 2. Additional Determinations as to the allegations added by the Defendant to this Court, and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
▣ 제1심 판결문 제4면 상단 [표] 내부 제1행 중 “즉식”을 “즉시”로 고친다.
▣ 제1심 판결문 제4면 상단 [표] 내부 제7행 다음에 아래와 같은 기재를 추가한다.
Article 5 (Prohibition of Amendment to the Contract for Construction Works, etc.) ① The Defendant is unable to arbitrarily terminate, cancel, or alter the contract for construction works without the Plaintiff’s prior written consent. ② The Defendant further confirms that the instant borrower entered into a separate contract with the boiler company, etc. for the instant construction project and uses the funds raised through the loan agreement for the purpose of paying construction expenses, etc. under the said separate contract, notwithstanding the contract for construction works concluded.”
A. 1) As to the Defendant’s assertion of motive mistake, the motive behind the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant concluded a separate contract with the boiler company and used the instant loan for the purpose of paying the boiler construction cost pursuant to the said separate contract, which was explicitly indicated in Article 5(2) of the instant undertaking. However, the instant agreement on the completion of liability should be revoked on the ground of the motive mistake indicated therein. 2) As such, in order to determine that there was an error in the expression of intent as prescribed in Article 109 of the Civil Act, the Defendant’s assertion of motive mistake would be against the perception of the observer and 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.