beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the plaintiffs are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the court of first instance’s explanation concerning this case is as follows: (a) the judgment on the assertion that the plaintiff A, E, K, L, P, S, T, and U was selectively added to the primary claim in the trial; and (b) the judgment on the plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim (Article 3(b) of the judgment) is identical to the ground of the judgment of the first instance, except for the modification of the judgment on the plaintiffs’ conjunctive claim (Article 3(b) as set forth in paragraph (3) below; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance
2. Judgment on the cancellation of the sales contract and the assertion of restitution on the ground of mistake among the primary claims
A. If the plaintiff A, E, K, L, P, S, T, and U alleged that the above plaintiffs would be influence of the district development plan, financial complex development plan, GTX construction plan, car transport construction plan, and LTX construction plan, the above plaintiffs did not conclude the sales contract in this case. This constitutes an error as to the important part of the contents of the legal act, which is caused by the defendants who are the other party. As such, the sales contract in this case may be cancelled regardless of the motive indicated, the defendants are obliged to pay 150 million won, which is part of the sales price, to each of the plaintiffs as a result of return of unjust enrichment.
B. Determination 1) In order to have an error in a declaration of intent under Article 109 of the Civil Act, the perception and actual fact should be changed as it is known that there was no fact actually existed at the time of the juristic act, or that there was no fact actually existed at the time of the act. As such, in a case where the occurrence of a certain matter in the future is uncertain at the time of the act, and the occurrence of such matter has not yet been done by the time of the act, it cannot be said that there was any disagreement between perception and fact in the psychological condition of the elector, and it cannot be said that there was an error (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 71Da2193, Mar. 28, 1972; 2012Da65317, Dec. 13, 2012). Moreover, the motive mistake is a legal act.