1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The reasoning for the court's explanation of this case is as follows, except for adding 2. 'Additional Judgment' to the defendant's assertion that the defendant added or repeated at the court of first instance, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

(However, the part that conflict with the reasoning of the judgment of the court is excluded). The defendant's assertion that the judgment of the court of the court was made ① because the plaintiff knew of the defendant's mistake and used it, the defendant can cancel his declaration of intention in

② The public announcement of tender price erroneously stated the minimum tender price under the former Civil Procedure Act is illegal, and the public announcement of the instant tender price is also unlawful and thus, the Defendant is not obligated to conclude a sales contract with the Plaintiff.

Judgment

The proviso of Article 109(1) of the Civil Act as to whether the plaintiff knew of the defendant's mistake and used it to protect the other party's interest, and even if the other party's mistake and uses it, if it was caused by the other party's gross negligence, the reporter may cancel his/her expression of intent, and the burden of proof as to the fact that the plaintiff knew of the defendant's mistake and used it is the defendant's assertion. In civil procedure, the burden of proof as to the fact that the plaintiff knew of the defendant's mistake and argued that the plaintiff used it is proved that there was a high probability that there was a fact by comprehensively examining all evidence in light of the empirical rule, barring any special circumstance, in light of the empirical rule, it is necessary to establish a high degree of probability that there was a fact based on the whole evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da49794 Decided November 27, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2008Da67555 Decided October 28, 2010). In addition, according to the results of inquiry into the Korea Asset Management Corporation of this Court, the Plaintiff is the instant case.