Whether a mistake concerning the identity of a debtor in a contract establishing a mortgage is a mistake concerning an important part of the legal act.

Upon receipt of a written contract establishing the right to collateral security, “A” submitted in blank, and signed and sealed by the debtor as the founder of the right to collateral security with the knowledge that the debtor was Eul, and later the debtor was Byung, and subsequently the debtor was Byung had registered the establishment of the right to collateral security, “A” expressed his/her intent to establish the remaining right to collateral security, which misleads the debtor as the debtor under the contract establishing the right to collateral security, and the mistake on the identity of the debtor constitutes an error with regard

Articles 109(1) and 357 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 86Meu448 delivered on August 19, 1986 (Gong1986, 1219) Supreme Court Decision 85Meu2339 delivered on July 21, 1987 (Gong1987, 1376), Supreme Court Decision 93Da14912 delivered on October 22, 1993 (Gong193Ha, 3153)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Jong-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Treatment Communications Co., Ltd. (Attorney Hun-tae, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 94Na7392 delivered on June 28, 1995

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

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The decision of the court below on the point that the theory of lawsuit points out (the point that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who is the employee of the defendant Gwangju branch office, presented to the plaintiff a mortgage contract and a joint and several surety contract in the △ Electrical office located adjacent to the non-party 3's ○○ Electrical office, whose debtor is blank, and requested the plaintiff to affix his signature and seal to the plaintiff's column and joint and several surety column, the plaintiff was aware that the non-party 3 was the above non-party 3, and then the debtor knew that the non-party 4 was the joint and several surety, and then the debtor was recognized as the non-party 4 as the non-party 4's collateral creation registration) was justified in light of relevant evidence and records, and there is no error of law that found the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, such as recognizing the facts contrary to the rule of experience, as in the process of lawsuit, and there is

2. If the facts are as determined by the court below, the plaintiff expressed his/her intent to create the remaining collateral security contract for the real estate in this case as the debtor who was not the non-party 4 but the non-party 3, and the mistake as to the identity of the debtor constitutes an error as to the important part of the contents of a juristic act. The court below's decision to the same purport is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the important part of the juristic act as pointed out by the plaintiff, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the important part of the juristic act, and the argument that the above mistake is due to the plaintiff's gross negligence is a new argument that is only due to the plaintiff's gross negligence, and thus, it cannot be accepted. Accordingly, the court below's decision to the effect that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the gross negligence of the

All arguments are without merit.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)