logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.29 2017나2025930
소유권이전등기
Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in this judgment is as follows: (a) part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is used as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the judgment on the defendants' assertion is added; and (b) thus, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Defendant B, C, and D (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) stated in the judgment of the court of first instance as follows. Defendant B, C, and D (hereinafter “Defendant B, etc.”) stated that no inheritance tax is levied at the time the agreement was reached and the agreement of this case was reached by the Plaintiff’s mistake that no inheritance tax is levied according to the judgment of the return of the reserved portion. This error is an error in the important part and declared that the agreement of this case was revoked on the ground that it was erroneous to the Plaintiff. Thus, the agreement of this case was revoked.

In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in motive constitutes an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, the motive shall be indicated to the other party as the content of the declaration of intention, and it shall be deemed that the mistake is the subject of a juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da12259, May 12, 200), or that the mistake is caused by the other party (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da1259, May 12, 200). However, even if the agreement of this case was reached by the Defendant B et al. as a result of the mistake that the inheritance tax was not levied on the other party, there is insufficient evidence to support that each of the items in evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3-3 through 6, 4-4, 14, 15, 17, 43, and 5 shall not be imposed on the Plaintiff et al. at the time of the agreement.

arrow