손해배상(기)
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Judgment of the first instance.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except where the plaintiff added to the pertinent part the following determination as to the matters alleged in the trial of the court of first instance, and thus, it refers to the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional matters to be determined;
A. According to the reasoning of the Plaintiff’s assertion-related statutes, although the instant cargo wing can not be manufactured at a 60-meter range of 20 meters, the Defendant deceptioned the Plaintiff that the instant wing wing wing wing can be manufactured at a 60-meter range without notifying such fact. Accordingly, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract due to the error that the instant wing wing wing wing wing can maintain the load temperature below 00 cm.
Therefore, the Plaintiff would cancel the above sales contract on the ground of fraud or mistake, and seek to refund the amount equivalent to the purchase cost of the instant cargo vehicle to its original state and take over the name of the said cargo vehicle.
B. The reasoning of the lower judgment on the assertion on revocation of fraud was insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant 1 could not produce a wing wing 18mm on the sole basis of the statement on the claim on revocation of fraud, stating that Defendant 2 could not produce a wing wing 60mm powder to the Plaintiff, thereby deceiving the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
C. In order for a person to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in the motive of the relevant legal doctrine as to the assertion of cancellation of mistake falls under 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 intention in question and to recognize that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, and it is not necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as