장비사용료 등
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the defendant's determination as to the newly disputed part as the grounds for appeal, which is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of
2. The defendant's decision on the grounds for appeal by the defendant asserts that since the defendant signed as a member of the contract of this case as a member of the contract of this case, there was a motive mistake, and the plaintiff caused or used the above mistake, so the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's request as a cancellation of the declaration of intent of guarantee under Article 109 of the Civil Code.
To cancel a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in motive or motive constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, the motive must be indicated to the other party as the content of the declaration of intent, and such motive must be the subject of a juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259, May 12, 200). However, in a case where the motive was provided or induced by the other party, the revocation shall be acknowledged regardless of the motive’s indication.
(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da6063 delivered on August 26, 1997). However, the Defendant believed that the Defendant’s signature and sealing in the column of the guarantor of the instant contract was a meaning to the extent that it was confirmed by attending and sealing the instant contract instead of the guarantor.
There is no evidence to acknowledge that such motive was the subject matter of a juristic act by setting the Plaintiff at the time of the instant contract, and there is no evidence to support that the Plaintiff provided or induced such motive to the Defendant. Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.
3. The judgment of the first instance court is just and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.