[1] Requirements for revocation of a legal act on the ground of an error in motive

[2] The case holding that the cancellation of a sales contract is revoked on the ground of motive mistake in a case where: (a) the intermediary’s horse that will be incorporated into the road of 20 to 30 square meters among the land subject to sale and purchase purchased the land for new construction of a house; and (b) the seller was also aware of the fact during the process of entering into the contract, which was discovered during the process of entering into the contract; and (c) the 197 square meters

[3] The meaning of "serious negligence" of a person who is unable to cancel his/her expression of intent due to mistake

[4] The case holding that the buyer's error of incorporation of land among land subject to sale cannot be deemed as due to gross negligence

[1] In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in an 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 pertinent declaration of intention, and it is deemed that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention, and it is not necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act between the parties as the content of the declaration of intention. However, the error in the contents of the juristic act should be regarded as an important part to the extent that it would have been deemed that if

[2] The case holding that the cancellation of a sales contract is acknowledged on the ground of motive mistake in a case where: (a) the intermediary’s horse that the land will be incorporated into the road of 20 to 30 square meters among the land subject to sale was purchased in order to newly build a new house; and (b) the seller was also aware of the fact during the process of entering into the contract, which was discovered during the process of entering into the contract; and (c) the 197 square meters

[3] The "serious negligence" of a person who can not be revoked in the declaration of intention by mistake means a lack of attention normally required in light of his occupation, type and purpose of his act.

[4] The case holding that it cannot be deemed that the buyer's mistake on the part of the land subject to sale, which was incorporated into the road, was due to gross negligence

[1] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act / [3] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act

[1] [3] Supreme Court Decision 97Da26210 delivered on September 30, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3286) Supreme Court Decision 97Da44737 delivered on February 10, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 686) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 95Da5516 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 47) Supreme Court Decision 93Da5487 delivered on March 26, 1996 (Gong196Sang, 1363) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 94Da25964 delivered on July 26, 199 (Gong196Ha, 2581) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da26797 delivered on August 26, 297 (Gong297Da76797 delivered on August 26, 1997)

Plaintiff (Attorney Yoon Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Park Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na12252 delivered on January 13, 2000

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the mistake of facts

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that at the time of the conclusion of the contract of this case, an intermediary will be incorporated into the road of approximately twenty to thirty square meters of the land of this case, and that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case in order to newly build the housing of this case with the knowledge of such fact, etc., all of which were removed during the process of entering into the contract, and it appears that the plaintiff and the defendant was aware of this fact. Accordingly, the court below recognized that the contract of this case was revoked on the ground of mistake by the defendant around July 1997 because the remaining land of this case was divided from the land of this case and the size of which was owned by Goyang-si is about thirty percent of the total size of the land of this case, and the purpose of the contract of this case cannot be achieved. In light of the records, the court below's fact-finding is just, and there is no error of law of mistake

2. As to the misapprehension of legal principle

A. In order to cancel a juristic act on the ground that the motive mistake falls under an error in an 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 pertinent declaration of intention, and it is deemed sufficient that the parties have agreed to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention. However, the mistake in the contents of the juristic act should be related to the important part to the extent that it would have been deemed that the general public would not have made such a declaration of intention if it had made the entry into the position of the public (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da26210, Sept. 30, 1997; 97Da44737, Feb. 10, 1998).

According to the facts established by the court below, it is deemed that the plaintiff believed that more than 20 to 30 square meters of the land of this case was divided at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract of this case and that the land of this case was not incorporated into the road is a motive mistake in relation to the sales contract of this case. However, according to the records, if the general public knew about the division of about 30 percent of the total area of the land of this case from the plaintiff's standpoint, it would not purchase the land of this case if he knew about the division of about 30 percent of the total area of the land of this case. Thus, it should be deemed that the plaintiff made a mistake as to the important part of the contents of the sales

In the same purport, the court below is just in holding that the plaintiff expressed his intent to revoke the contract of this case on the ground that the contract of this case was made by mistake, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the important part in mistake as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal

B. In addition, the defendant knew that part of the land of this case is to be incorporated into a road at the time of entering into the sales contract of this case, and he did not confirm the part of the incorporated into a road even though he could have easily known the incorporated part, and it could not be cancelled because it was caused by the plaintiff's gross negligence. Thus, the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the plaintiff's assertion was erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to gross negligence. However, this argument was raised only when it was raised to the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal. Meanwhile, the "serious negligence" of a voter who cannot be cancelled in the expression of intent by mistake means that it lacks the principle of care normally required in light of his occupation, kind of act and purpose, etc. (see each judgment cited above). According to the records, the plaintiff was incorporated into a refined point at the time, but it cannot be seen that there was no other significant error in the plaintiff's work, including the non-party, who is the defendant's birth, and there was no other evidence to prove it.

This part of the grounds of appeal is 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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Im-soo (Presiding Justice)