Cases where there are errors in the motive of a juristic act

If the Defendant knew that the victim’s injury was not caused by negligence in driving water belonging to the Defendant Company, the guarantee of the medical expenses would not have been expressed, but was unaware of this, so even if the Defendant expressed his intent, it was merely a mistake in the motive of decision making, that is, there was only an error in the motive of decision making, and it does not constitute an error in the content of the expression of intent, and thus, it cannot be said that there was an error in

Article 109 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 4286Da149 delivered on December 9, 1954 (Supreme Court Decision 5257Da15257 delivered on May 1, 195, 195)

Plaintiff

Defendant corporation

Seoul Central District Court (71 Gohap6250) in the first instance trial

(1) The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

(2)The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

(iii)The parts on which no provisional execution has been declared in the text of the original judgment may be provisionally executed.

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 656,900 won with an annual interest of 5% from the next day to the next day after the delivery of a copy of the main complaint as to this case.

The judgment that the lawsuit cost shall be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution are sought.

The defendant shall revoke the original judgment.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

In light of the above evidence Nos. 5-1 (traffic accident report), 2 (Motor Vehicle Accident Confirmation Board), 1-1 (Medical Fee Consent), 2-1-2 (Medical Fee Consent), and 3-2 of the court below's testimony, which are acknowledged as the authenticity by Non-Party 1's testimony, and the above testimony of Non-Party 2, and part of the verification result of Non-Party 3's testimony, the non-Party 4 did not have to bear the responsibility for treatment of Non-Party 1's company's injury to the plaintiff on April 15, 1971. The non-party 5-20-6 of the court below's admission of Non-Party 1's admission of Non-Party 4 and the non-Party 5's admission of non-party 1's admission of non-party 4-6's admission of non-party 8's admission of non-party 1's admission of non-party 5's admission of the above non-party 1's admission of the plaintiff 5's injury.

Even if the defendant's act of guaranteeing the medical expenses, etc. of the non-party 1 for the non-party 4 was effective against the defendant company, the defendant knew that the non-party 5 was negligent at the time of guaranteeing the defendant company. Since the above guarantee act was conducted by mistake, it was cancelled. Thus, the defendant's act of guaranteeing the non-party 5 was done by mistake. Thus, if the non-party 1's testimony was taken by the non-party 2's witness's testimony, it can be known that the non-party 1, who is the defendant's representative, expressed his intention to guarantee the medical expenses, etc. of the non-party 4 for the non-party 4, the defendant's above assertion was not made if he knew that the non-party 4's injury was not caused by the non-party 5's negligence, which is the driving number of the defendant company, at the time of guaranteeing the defendant company's above declaration of intention, it cannot be viewed that the defendant's expression of intent was more likely to be made by mistake, but it cannot be viewed that the defendant's intent of mistake.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of five percent per annum from October 28, 1971 to the full payment system, which is obviously the next day for delivery of a copy of the complaint filed by the plaintiff as to the above 656,900 won as well as the above 656,90 won to the plaintiff. Thus, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and there is no ground for appeal by the defendant. Therefore, the appeal costs are dismissed pursuant to Article 384 of the Civil Procedure Act and the judgment of provisional execution is delivered in accordance with Article 89, Article 95 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 199 of the same Act

Judges Kim Jong-hee (Presiding Justice) and Noh Jeong-hee