beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are dismissed, respectively.
costs of lawsuit after an appeal are filed.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part to be determined additionally by the following sub-paragraph (2) with respect to the conjunctive claims added at the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable to accept
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff could engage in the re-scal sales room business within the total area of the instant building (112.38 square meters), and the Plaintiff entered into the instant lease agreement with the Defendant without seeking accurate explanation as to the existence of a part of an illegal building, the area of the permitted business site is limited to 25 square meters among the instant buildings. This constitutes an error in the current status of the business license, which is an important part of the instant lease agreement, and if the Plaintiff was aware of such fact, the instant lease agreement was revoked pursuant to Article 109(1) of the Civil Act.
Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff 59,027,700 won with unjust enrichment and damages for delay.
B. In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in the motive of judgment 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, and it is deemed that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention, and it is not necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act between the parties as the content of the declaration of intent. However, the error in the contents of the juristic act should be an important part to the extent that it would have been deemed that
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259, May 12, 2000). As to the instant case, the Plaintiff’s assertion was examined.