[1] Requirements for cancellation of a juristic act on the grounds of motive mistake, and the meaning of "serious negligence" in cancellation of a juristic act on the grounds of mistake

[2] In a case where Gap corporation cancels a sales contract with Eul corporation on the grounds that it had mistakenly entered into a sales contract with Eul corporation on the grounds that it had mistakenly known land in an agricultural and forest area as land management area, the case affirming the judgment below which rejected Eul corporation's assertion that there was gross negligence on the part of Eul corporation, which did not confirm other documents such as the classification of mountainous district use in addition to the certificate of land use plan, on the ground that the sales contract was an important matter of the sales contract in light of the purpose of the sale and the conclusion of the contract, and since the contents of the contract were an important matter of the contract, the sales contract on the above part of the above land

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

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da44737 delivered on February 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 686) Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259 delivered on May 12, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1417)

Plaintiff (Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee & Lee LLC, Inc.

Dae Young-dong Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Mailing, Attorneys Song-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Pyeongtaek-gun (Law Firm Dokdo, Attorneys Cho Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na36829, 36836 decided November 9, 201

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of the appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the costs of the appeal by the Defendant Park Young-man Co., Ltd. are assessed against the Defendant Dae Young-man Co., Ltd., respectively.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

The lower court acknowledged the facts and circumstances as indicated in its reasoning based on the adopted evidence, and determined that it was difficult to regard the Plaintiff as a party to the instant sales contract, on the ground that the instant secondary contract with the Plaintiff as one of the buyers was made formally at the request of the Plaintiff Lee Subdivision Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Co., Ltd.”).

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just, and there are no errors in the rules of evidence and rules of experience, incomplete hearing, determination of parties to a contract, probative value of disposal documents, and the establishment and cancellation of confession, and there are no errors in violation

2. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant Dae Young-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”)

In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in the motive constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the declaration of intent, and it is deemed sufficient to conclude that the other party is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent, and it is also necessary to conclude that there is an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act between the parties concerned. However, the mistake in the contents of the juristic act must be related to the important part of the mistake so that it would have been deemed that the ordinary public would not have made an expression of intent. However, if the error was caused by the gross negligence of the one who made the indication, it shall not be cancelled. The "serious negligence" here refers to a lack of the principle of attention normally required in light of the occupation, type and purpose of the act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da4737, Feb. 10, 1998

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the Plaintiff Company’s assertion that the Plaintiff Company’s purchase contract of this case was lawfully cancelled on August 16, 2010, on the ground that, in light of the purpose of selling and selling the land of this case, the Plaintiff Company or the Defendant Company’s intent of cancellation due to the mistake of the Plaintiff Company, the purpose of the land use plan confirmation, the nature of the land use plan, and the trust of the general public, and such matters were the contents of the contract of this case, and thus, the Plaintiff Company concluded the contract of this case with the knowledge that the land of this case was an agricultural and forest area management area, and it does not seem to have any circumstance that the land of this case was entirely sold and sold. Thus, on the premise that the Plaintiff Company could cancel the contract of this case as to part of this case’s land of this case, the part of the land of this case’s purchase contract of this case’s land (number 1 omitted) shall be indicated as the lot number.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records as seen earlier, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to mistake of facts caused by the violation of the rules of evidence, mistake in legal act or partial revocation of a legal act, or errors in the application of Acts and subordinate statutes or errors in the application of Acts and subordinate statutes, non-exercise of right to explanation or incomplete hearing, or gross negligence by mistake in the important part of the juristic act and the

In addition, the court below's determination that the land of this case constitutes a management area includes the purport of rejecting the defendant company's assertion that the plaintiff company did not indicate it as the motive for the conclusion of the contract of this case. Thus, the court below did not err by omitting its judgment.

Meanwhile, the argument by the Defendant Company that the Plaintiff Company transferred part of the land before the partition (number 2 omitted) to the Plaintiff among the instant land and that the registration of seizure or provisional seizure on the land (number 1 omitted) constitutes a legal ground for prosecution, cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal, as it is a new argument that only was made in the final appeal, and that it did not constitute a legitimate ground for appeal. Furthermore, it cannot be deemed that the lower court’s failure to determine the above assertion was erroneous in exercising the right of explanation or incomplete

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of the appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Plaintiff, and the costs of the appeal by the Plaintiff are assessed against the Defendant Park Young-man Co., Ltd., by the assent of all participating Justices. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Yong-deok (Presiding Justice)