The elements and relationship of a legal act

If there is an error in the elements of a juristic act, the person who is the witness shall not assert the invalidity due to his gross negligence, except in the case where he is unable to assert the invalidity of the juristic act, and may assert the invalidity of the juristic act in relation to him, or in relation to him, or in relation to him, his mistake shall affect the validity of the juristic act only when the party knows the fact about it and knows that it is the content of the juristic act.

Article 95 of the Civil Act

Chang Finance Association (Representative, Professor Chang-chul et al., Counsel for director)

Defendant 1 and three others (Attorney Lee Dong-hoon, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Jeonju District Court of the first instance, Gwangju High Court of the second instance, 52 Civil Gong122 delivered on July 18, 1953

The main body is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne jointly by the defendant, etc.

The grounds of appeal No. 1 are as follows: (a) it is difficult for the Defendant to find out the fact that the other party to the instant contract was not aware of the fact that he had been aware of the fact that he had not entered in the name of the non-party 1's original judgment or that the non-party 2 was not a party to the instant contract with the non-party 2's original judgment; (b) it is difficult for the Defendant to find that the non-party 1 was a joint and several surety under the name of the non-party 2's original judgment and that the non-party 2 was not a party to the instant contract with the non-party 1's original judgment, and that the non-party 2 was not a party to the instant contract with the non-party 2's original judgment, and that the non-party 1's original judgment was not a party to the instant contract with the non-party 2's original judgment, and that the non-party 2's original judgment was not a party to the instant contract with the non-party 1's original judgment.

However, according to the records, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 asserted only the facts as to the error of element as a defense about the invalidity of guarantee contract at the original court, but cannot find out the facts necessary for the false representation of the lawsuit or the psychological reservation. The court below's argument that it is not necessary to make an adjudication on this issue is nothing more thanks to the assertion of new facts not asserted in the original court in the final appeal.

As to the defense that Defendant 2 is invalid because there is an error in the terms of the guarantee agreement of Defendant 2, 3, and 4, etc., the original judgment is the first instance court witness No. 12-2, 4, 8, and 9, and the testimony of Nonparty 2 as stated in each of the first instance court witness No. 12-3, 7, 8, and 9 may be acknowledged that the defendant 2, 3, and 4 would mainly take into account the testimony of Nonparty 1 as stated in each of the first instance court witness No. 2, who did not have any dispute over the establishment of the testimony. However, it cannot be said that the court below's decision that there was no error as to the above facts that the witness did not make an attempt to correct the situation, and that there was no error as to the above facts that the witness did not have any influence on the terms of the guarantee agreement of the guarantor and the debtor, and that there was no error as to the above facts that the court below's decision that there was no error as to the above facts.

Defendant 2’s agent’s ground of appeal No. 1 asserted that this case’s guarantee agreement was null and void in the original judgment, but in the reasoning of the original judgment, Defendant 2, 3, and 4 asserted that this case’s guarantee agreement was null and void, the parties to the guarantee agreement cannot be said to be an error of the element of the guarantee agreement, because the relationship between the guarantor and the creditor, and the guarantor and the debtor did not affect the content of the direct guarantee agreement, and the so-called mistake could not be said to be an error of the element of the guarantee agreement, and there is no reason to believe that this mistake was known to Defendant 3.” However, the existence of the elements of the legal act is determined by whether there was no error in the important part of the doctor’s opinion, and whether the other party to the legal act was unaware of the misunderstanding. However, the judgment of the lower court and the judgment did not err in interpreting the ideology of the elements unreasonably.

However, in light of the original judgment and the records, if we consider the purport of the defense as to Defendant 2, 3, and 4's error in the elements of the joint and several liability, it can be inferred that, on behalf of the above defendant 1, the above defendant alleged that there was no lower error in the original judgment itself and that there was an error as to the motive leading up to the expression of intent to bear the liability for guarantee, i.e., the motive itself of the joint and several liability contract by the above defendant, etc., that is, there was no lower error in the original judgment, but in the expression of intention, it was obvious that the above defendant 1 lent only the name from the beginning to the former, and the actual non-party 2 was aware of the fact that the grain management work was carried out, and that there was no error in the original judgment, which was the site by mistake, and that there was no error in the original judgment that the other party did not assert the same fact as to the juristic act in question, and that there was no objection to the effect of the said juristic act after adding it to the original judgment.

The ground of appeal No. 3 by Defendant 4 is that the original judgment is based on evidence in fact-based evidence, and the plaintiff's attorney submits evidence No. 11 to No. 12-10, and the plaintiff's attorney submits evidence No. 12-1 and No. 12-10, but according to the oral argument protocol by the court below at the time of March 10, 4286, the plaintiff's attorney submitted evidence and stated "No. 1 to No. 12-1 and No. 10 of No. 12-1 and No. 12-10." In other words, it is unclear whether the plaintiff's attorney submitted evidence No. 1 to No. 11 and No. 111 in the oral argument by the court below, and it is impossible to make a decision as to the error of law in writing of No. 1 and No. 111.

However, in case where the whole written statement of oral argument in the court of first instance is circulated in the court of first instance and the court of first instance, it is possible to see the purport that 3 of the evidence No. 1 has fallen under 2 of the same Act among the written statements, as well as as as the original defendant stated the result of the oral argument in the court of first instance at the same time as it is evident by the written statement, the evidence No. 1 to No. 12 of the first instance submitted in the court of first instance can be deemed to have been submitted to the court of first instance as a matter of course. Thus, the court below's acknowledgement of the evidence No. 1 in the original judgment is without merit and there is no error of law

The defendant 2's ground of appeal No. 2 asserted that this case's guarantee contract was a contract for fidelity guarantee, and the original judgment applied the provision of the Act on the Guarantee of Manman's Identity to employment which is subordinate to the employer between the employee and the employer. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the defendant 1 could not be regarded as a contract for fidelity guarantee because it was kept as a trustee by receiving the deposit of grain from the plaintiff. However, in the case of the entrustment contract by interpretation of Article 1 of the Guarantee of Manman's inquiry, it is reasonable to view the truster as the employer as the employee even in the case of the entrustment contract by interpreting it in light of light, it is reasonable to view the truster as the employee in light of the spirit of the law, and the former part of the above provision as the "no. 1" without examining the name of the contract No. 1, even if the name of the guarantor was deposited, it is reasonable to view it as a contract for fidelity guarantee to compensate for future losses due to the act of the guarantor.

However, according to the original judgment, the court below recognized that this case's guarantee contract cannot be seen as a contract for fidelity guarantee under the Act on the Guarantee of Personal Identity, as the reasons for the judgment, and it cannot be construed as a reasonable interpretation in light of the same law, and there is no ground to hold any objection thereto. Accordingly, this case's appeal shall be dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 and Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Justices Kim Byung-ro (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice), Justice Kim Dong-ho, Justice Kim Dong-dong, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)