The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, where there is an error in the important part of the content of a juristic act, a person who is not grossly negligent may cancel such juristic act. According to Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act, where there is a defect in the object of the sale and purchase, a buyer who was unaware of the defect without negligence may cancel the contract or claim damages against the seller by asking the seller for the warranty liability.

The cancellation system due to mistake and the seller's warranty liability system are different from each other, and their requirements and effects are different.

Therefore, if there is an error in the important part of the sales contract, the buyer can cancel the sales contract on the ground of an error, regardless of whether the seller's warranty liability is established.

(2) The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that among paintings purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant, each paintings No. 1, No. 3, and No. 6 in the judgment of the court below, each paintings No. 1, No. 1, and No. 3, and No. 6 in the judgment of the court below, and that the plaintiff's purchase of each paintings No. 1, which the plaintiff was known to the defendant as a prone is erroneous in the important part of the contents of the legal act. Thus, the court below lawfully revoked the contract of this case by the plaintiff's declaration of revocation on the ground that the parts of paintings No. 1, No. 3, and No. 6 in the contract of this case were erroneous.

Examining the records in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable.

There is no error by misapprehending the legal principles on mistake and warranty liability.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, the lower court, on the grounds as indicated in its reasoning, sold the instant case by the paintings No. 2 No. 1 attached hereto.