beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. As to the instant land, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement with the Defendant on State-owned property with the purpose of farming for the purpose of using it (hereinafter “instant land”). On November 6, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with regard to the instant land at KRW 22,170,000 (hereinafter “instant sales contract”), and the Cheongju District Court was appointed as the registration office No. 1137 of February 6, 2018 as to the instant land.
B. The instant sales contract satisfied the criteria for applying the comprehensive plan for State-owned property in 2017, namely, the farmland under the Farmland Act to sell state-owned land to a person who has been directly cultivated for at least five consecutive years after obtaining a lease of state-owned land (including permission for use).
C. The boundary of the instant land for which the Plaintiff entered into the instant contract for the loan of State property and the instant contract for sale is as follows. The boundary of the instant land cultivated by the Plaintiff so far after the conclusion of the said contract for the loan of State property is identical to the form of “A” land. A. B [based on recognition] does not dispute, each of the entries in Gap’s 1, 3, 7, and Eul’s 1, 3, 3, 5, and 6 (including the number of branch numbers), and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract by misunderstanding the current status and boundary of the said “B,” which was cultivated as farmland after having entered into the previous State property loan agreement for the purpose of farming, which constitutes an error in the important part of the contract, which constitutes an error in the part of the contract.
Accordingly, the Plaintiff revoked the instant sales contract, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff unjust enrichment equivalent to the sales price and damages for delay.
B. The importance of the content of the legal act is to recognize the cancellation of the legal act by mistake in the relevant legal doctrine.