logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.02.15 2018가단226540
기타(금전)
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On April 16, 2018, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to acquire the F Child Care Center (hereinafter “instant child care center”) of KRW 20 million for the premium of KRW 20 million (hereinafter “this case’s acquisition contract”). As an important matter for the operation of the child care center, the Plaintiff had the Plaintiff enter into the instant acquisition contract by concealing the number of children who need to attend school or to have the Plaintiff enter into the instant acquisition contract, and thus, the Plaintiff revoked the instant acquisition contract on the ground of the Defendant’s breach of the duty of disclosure on June 14, 2018. The Defendant paid KRW 2,90,000,000,000,000 for the premium of KRW 20,000 for the instant contract and the brokerage commission required to enter into the contract, etc. from the Plaintiff’s lease contract to the lessee’s status, and paid the indirect compulsory payment to the Plaintiff by the time of acquisition of the status of the lessee.

B. Determination 1) Determination 1) An expression of intent may be cancelled when there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act. In a case where there is an error in the motive for the expression of intent, it shall be possible to cancel by mistake in the contents of the declaration of intent only when the parties have taken the motive for the expression of intent into account. The phrase “an error in the important part of a juristic act” means an important part to the extent that it would not have made the expression of intent if there was no such a mistake, and it shall be so important to the extent that it would not have made the expression of intent if there was no such a mistake in the part of the general public’s list (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2014Da18186, Dec. 24, 2014; 2014Da18193, Dec. 24, 2014).

arrow