2012Gahap3252 Sales Price

Plaintiff

Daegu Suwon-gu

Attorney Lee Do-young

Defendant

Daegu Suwon-gu

Attorney Lee Do-young

August 30, 2012

September 20, 2012

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 488,358,620 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery day of the written correction of the claim and the cause of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

On October 13, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Defendant to purchase each real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as the “instant real estate”) from the Defendant for KRW 477,00,000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant contract”). On November 3, 2011, the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales contract again by modifying part of the instant contract, such as the payment date, etc., and the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract again on October 13, 201. On the same day, the Plaintiff completed the registration of ownership transfer on October 13, 201 with regard to the instant real estate on the same day for sale. [based on recognition] Each entry in Gap’s subparagraphs 1, 2, Eul’s evidence (including the provisional number), witness testimony, witness testimony, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary argument

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Since the Defendant’s supply of urban gas to the instant real estate at the time of entering into the instant contract was impossible, the Plaintiff’s rescission of the instant contract based on the Defendant’s default liability or warranty liability, and accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to return to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 488,358,620, including the purchase price of KRW 477,00,000,000, ownership transfer registration cost, KRW 9,458,620, and KRW 1,900,000 for the purchase price of goods.

B. Determination

It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff agreed to supply urban gas to the real estate of this case upon entering into the contract of this case only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 8, 11 through 14 (including the paper numbers), and the witness's partial testimony alone. The Plaintiff's assertion on this premise is without merit, as there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Judgment on the plaintiff's conjunctive assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract with the Defendant with the belief that urban gas will be supplied to the instant real estate. At the time of the contract, the Defendant was aware of such circumstances, which was revealed to be impossible to supply urban gas. This constitutes an error of motive as to the important part of the instant contract, and thus, the Plaintiff was indicated as the content of the contract. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s contract was revoked on the ground

B. Determination, inquiry, and declaration of intention may be revoked in cases where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, and in cases where there is an error in the motive for the declaration of intention, it shall be possible to revoke by mistake in the contents of the declaration of intention only when the parties have made the motive for the declaration of intention. The mistake in the important part of a juristic act shall be such an important part that would not have made the indication of intention if there was no such a mistake, and it shall be so important to the extent that if there was the person who made the statement in the place of the general public’s list, such declaration of intention would not have been made (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da5487, Mar. 26, 1996).

In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to find that the plaintiff believed that urban gas will be supplied to the real estate of this case at the time of entering into the contract of this case. In light of the circumstances in which the contract of this case was made several times, it is difficult to recognize that the defendant's aforementioned motive was the content of the contract of this case or the plaintiff's motive was caused by mistake from the defendant. Thus, the plaintiff cannot cancel the contract of this case on the ground of mistake. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion of this part is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Mobilization by the presiding judge

Judges Park Jin-jin

Judges Lee Jong-soo