The sale price of real estate is high compared to the market price and the violation of the good faith principle.

B. Whether a mistake in the market price in land sale constitutes a mistake in the important part of a juristic act (negative)

The principle of trust and good faith declared by Article 2 of the Civil Act does not constitute a violation of the principle of trust and good faith in concluding a real estate sales contract, on the ground that a member of the social community demands in good faith in relation to the exercise of rights and the performance of duties among specific individuals under the principle of private autonomy, and that the purchase price is at a price higher than the market price.

B. Whether a mistake in the expression of intent is an error in the important part of the contents of a legal act, the determination of whether a mistake in the expression of intent is a mistake in the important part of the contents of the legal act should be based on the subjective and objective circumstances as to each act, and it should be determined in accordance with the specific circumstances, and it should not be avoided abstract and uniformly. However, in the case of land sale, a mistake in the market price is limited to a mistake in the motive for the purchase of land, and it cannot be said that

Articles 2 and 109 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 81Da239 Delivered on April 10, 1984

Lee Ji and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant Kim Yong-hoon

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na2178 delivered on March 14, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to ground of appeal No. 1

The principle of trust and good faith declared by Article 2 (a) of the Civil Act requires that the exercise of rights and the performance of duties among specific individuals under the principle of judicial autonomy be a member of the social community, and the conclusion of the real estate sales contract of this case cannot be deemed to be contrary to the principle of trust and good faith on the ground that the purchase price is at a level lower than the market price. On the other hand, on the records, it cannot be said that the non-party 1, who acquired 51,000,000 won out of the purchase price of this case by acquiring 51,00,000 won from the non-party 1, who was the market of Gangnam-si at the time of the conclusion of the sale and purchase contract, could not be considered to have actively participated in the act of breach of trust of the non-party 1, who was the market of Gangnam-si at the time of the conclusion of the contract. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's defense on this point is justifiable, and there is no reason for appeal to this point.

2. As to the second ground for appeal:

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below dismissed the defendant's defense as to the cancellation of the defendant's expression of intent by deception on the ground that there was no evidence to deem that the sales contract of this case was concluded by deception, which is the seller of this case, the new-gu or his agent, and that there was no sufficient document to support that the sales contract of this case was concluded by deception. Thus, the court below's measure cannot be said to be erroneous as the theory of lawsuit, because it cannot be said that there was any error in law, such as the theory of lawsuit, and the arguments cannot be adopted merely because it criticizes the confirmation of the facts belonging to the exclusive authority of the court below.

The issue of whether a mistake in the expression of intent constitutes a mistake in the important part of the contents of a juristic act shall be determined based on the specific circumstances as a result of driving away from an objective standard. However, the mere fact that a mistake in the motive or motive of the so-called tobacco which was caused by a mistake in the process of forming an internal effect is that there is an emulative intent and the emulative intent, and that there is no difference between the intention of internal effect and the indication, and the issue of the mistake in the expression of intent as stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Act can not be raised, because the sale contract of this case was determined based on the appraisal price at the time of the defendant's request, so it cannot be said that there is any disagreement between the intention of internal effect at the time of the defendant's market price and the indication thereof, and even if the defendant's own intent of this case is argued as a result of the defendant's own act of buying and selling the land, it cannot be said that there is no difference between the motive of the defendant's own act of buying and selling the land.

3. As to ground of appeal No. 3

The grounds of appeal are examined as follows: (a) under the premise that the sales contract of this case was invalidated or revoked for the same reasons as alleged in the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2, such invalidation or revocation can be asserted against the plaintiff, etc. who is the assignee of the claim; and (b) under the premise that the defendant's assertion that the invalidity or revocation of the sales contract of this case is void or revoked is not reasonable, if there is no reason to do so, the necessity of the judgment on the remainder shall return to

4. Therefore, the defendant's appeal is dismissed without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)