[1] The meaning of mistake in an important part of a juristic act / meaning of "serious negligence" of a voter who is unable to cancel his/her declaration of intention by mistake, and whether the buyer has a duty of care to confirm in advance the consistency between the object of sale and the cadastral map (negative in principle)

[2] In a case where Party A was aware of the fact that “A” entered into a contract for the purchase of land from Party B, including approximately 80 square meters in front of the tree field adjacent to the above land, and approximately 40 square meters in the adjoining road portion,” but Party B was aware of the boundary of land and did not provide accurate explanation as to the boundary of land at the time of the purchase and sale contract, the case holding that Party A was unable to be deemed to have committed gross negligence on the ground that the area of the part erroneously recognized by Party A constituted a substantial part of the above land area, on the grounds that Party A erred in the boundary of the object of the sale and sale contract, and the error constitutes an important part, and that Party A’s mistake was caused due to the erroneous explanation by Party B

[1] An expression of intent may be cancelled in a case where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act. An error in the part of a juristic act shall be such important as to have been thought not to have made such an expression of intent if there was no such an error. It should be so important that if there was an error in the current status and boundary of the land and in the position of the general public, it would not have made such an expression of intent. If it would have been known before the conclusion of the contract, it would be obvious that the purpose of the contract would not have been achieved if there was an error in the current status and boundary of the land, and it would be deemed that there would have been

When there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, the declaration of intention may be revoked, but such error shall not be revoked if the error is caused by the gross negligence of the voter. Here, the term “serious negligence” refers to the neglect of the attention ordinarily required in light of the name, type, purpose, etc. of the voter. Barring special circumstances, it cannot be deemed that there is a duty of care to confirm in advance whether the subject matter of sale is accurately consistent with that in the cadastral map by means of surveying the buyer or comparing with the cadastral map, etc.

[2] In a case where Party A was aware of the fact that “A” entered into a contract for the purchase of land from Party B, including approximately 80 square meters in front of each tree dry field adjacent to the above land, and approximately 40 square meters in adjoining road parts,” but Party B was aware of the boundary of land and did not provide accurate explanation as to the boundary of land at the time of the purchase and sale contract, the case holding that Party A was unable to be deemed to have committed gross negligence on the ground that the area of the part erroneously recognized by Party A constituted a substantial part of the area of the above land, on the grounds that Party A took part of the boundary of the object of the sales contract, and the error constitutes an important part, and that Party A’s mistake was caused due to the erroneous explanation by Party B.

[1] Article 109 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 109 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 67Da2160 delivered on March 26, 196 (No. 16-1, 177) Supreme Court Decision 74Da54 delivered on April 23, 1974 (Gong1974, 7841) Supreme Court Decision 84Da2344 delivered on November 12, 1985 (Gong1986, 16) Supreme Court Decision 92Da25830, 25847 delivered on November 24, 1992 (Gong193Sang, 232), Supreme Court Decision 93Da5487 delivered on March 26, 196 (Gong196, 1363), Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2084939 delivered on April 12, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2008Da2082849 delivered on April 26, 2004).

Plaintiff (Law Firm Low Stis, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Han-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2018Na112992 Decided October 31, 2019

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A declaration of intent may be cancelled in a case where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act. An error in the part of a juristic act shall be such an important part that would have been deemed not to have made an expression of intent if there was no such an error (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da55487, Mar. 26, 196; 2008Da1842, Mar. 16, 2009; 2008Da1842, Apr. 25, 197, etc.). In a case where, due to a mistake in the present state and boundary of land and where it was known before the conclusion of a contract, it is obvious that the purpose of the contract could not be achieved if it was not so, and thus, it is deemed that the mistake in the important part of the contract would not have been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 67Da2160, Mar. 26, 1968; 204Da4754, Apr. 374).

In a case where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, the declaration of intention may be revoked, but such error shall not be revoked if the error was caused by a gross negligence of the person who made the mark. Here, the term “serious negligence” refers to the neglect of due care ordinarily required in light of the person’s occupation, type, purpose, etc. (see Supreme Court Decisions 92Da25830, 25847, Nov. 24, 1992; 2002Da70884, Apr. 11, 2003, etc.). Unless there are special circumstances in the sale and purchase of land, it cannot be deemed that there was a duty of care to confirm in advance whether the subject matter of sale is accurately consistent with that in the cadastral map by means of surveying the buyer or comparing with the cadastral map (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 84Da2344, Nov. 12, 1985).

2. For the following reasons, the lower court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s primary claim seeking the return of the down payment, recognizing that the instant sales contract was legally revoked by the Plaintiff’s declaration of intent of revocation on the ground of mistake.

A. On August 10, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with the Defendant to purchase KRW 1,074 square meters (number omitted) for KRW 4,875 million (hereinafter “instant land”). On August 14, 2017, the Plaintiff paid down payment KRW 20 million to the Defendant.

B. At the time of the instant sales contract, the Plaintiff was mistakenly aware that “an area of approximately 80 square meters in front of the instant land is included in approximately 40 square meters adjacent to the instant land and does not include approximately 40 square meters.” The Defendant was aware of the boundary of the instant land as the Plaintiff, and accordingly, did not provide accurate explanation as to the boundary of the instant land to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant sales contract.

C. The area of the part that the Plaintiff recognized that it was not included or included in the instant land constitutes a significant part of approximately 325 square meters, which is the area of the instant land. Therefore, the Plaintiff erred on the boundary of the object of the instant sales contract, and the error constitutes an important part.

D. The Defendant alleged that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant was also aware of the boundary of the instant land, and the Plaintiff’s mistake was caused due to the Defendant’s erroneous explanation, and thus, it is difficult to deem that there was gross negligence on the part of the Plaintiff.

3. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the evidence duly admitted, the lower judgment is justifiable. In so doing, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence inconsistent with logical and empirical rules, or by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the revocation of expression of intent due to mistake, contrary

4. The Defendant’s appeal is without merit, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Dong-won (Presiding Justice)