beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
Reasons
1. Grounds for the court's explanation concerning the facts of recognition and this part of the judgment
B. 2) In addition to the addition of the following additional determinations, the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment, and thus, they are cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. 2. 3) The Defendant asserts that the nature of the sales contract of this case constitutes a so-called through sale where multiple owners sell all multi-households to the same purchaser. The Defendant asserts that the sales contract of this case constitutes a so-called through sale where multiple owners sell all multi-households. The Plaintiff and C received false information about the sales price of other households, and the Defendant concluded the sales contract of this case by mistake as the sale of the real estate under the best terms of the sale, and thus, the Defendant
On the other hand, even if the nature of the sales contract of this case constitutes a common sale and the defendant has concluded a sales contract of this case, it is difficult to regard it as an error in the sales contract of this case, and it is merely an error in motive that has concluded the sales contract of this case. Thus, the defendant's assertion of cancellation of declaration of intent by mistake is without merit, and the defendant does not clearly state his motive's assertion as to mistake. Even if the defendant takes the above assertion as a ground for cancellation of declaration of intent by mistake of motive, it cannot be revoked on the ground of mistake because it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff is an element of a juristic act by expression of intent, and it is difficult to recognize that the motive is the content of a juristic act by interpretation of intent. Accordingly, the defendant's argument above is without merit.
4. The defendant's assertion of contract rescission due to the plaintiff's delay of performance is the sales contract of this case to C on January 17, 2015.