[1] The meaning of "serious negligence" under the proviso of Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code

[2] The case holding that the contract can be cancelled on the ground of mistake on the ground that the fact that the buyer, a complaint, purchased the product without inquiring about the source or professional appraiser's appraisal, is not recognized gross negligence, in case where an intentional purchaser, who was aware of the intention to consider, was found to be not a serious product

[1] "Serious negligence" as stipulated in the proviso of Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code refers to a lack of attention that is ordinarily required in light of the name of the voter, the type and purpose of the act.

[2] The case holding that the sales contract may be revoked on the ground of mistake on the ground that it is difficult for the buyer to be deemed to have significantly lacking the ordinary duty of care required at the time of the conclusion of the sales contract, even though the buyer believed that he purchased his own goods with the knowledge of the person who introduced the identity of his curios and the purchase and sale, and that he purchased his own goods at a high price without asking the warden's identity or source, and without going through a professional appraiser's appraisal, and did not take necessary measures in preparation for the case that he is not the person responsible for consideration.

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

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da25964 delivered on July 26, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2581) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 92Da3881 delivered on June 29, 1993 (Gong1993Ha, 2122), Supreme Court Decision 94Da22453 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 350) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da31507 delivered on December 26, 1989 (Gong190, 361)

Plaintiff (Attorney Park Jae-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and six others (Attorney Kang Byung-ho, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 96Na8135 delivered on May 16, 1996

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the non-party 2 was aware of the above non-party 5's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 2's own interest or the non-party 2's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 4's own interest in the non-party 6's own interest because the non-party 5's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 6's own interest in the non-party 6's own interest, and the non-party 2's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 6's own interest in the non-party 3's own interest in the non-party 6's own interest because the non-party 5's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 2's own interest in the non-party 3's own interest in this case's non-party 6's own interest in the purchase and sale of the above non-party 2's own interest.

2. However, the "serious negligence" stipulated in the proviso of Article 109 (1) of the Civil Code refers to the lack of attention ordinarily required in light of the occupation, type, purpose, etc. of the list, and the record revealed that the above non-party 1, the complaint of this case, purchased from around 20 years before the purchase. The above non-party 2, who was the non-party 1, was introduced on the part of the above non-party 1, and the non-party 6, and the plaintiff et al. were not informed of the complaint and the source properly, and it is hard to view the non-party 2's own opinion that the non-party 2's own opinion and the non-party 3's own opinion that the non-party 2's own opinion and the non-party 3's opinion that the non-party 1's own opinion and the non-party 2's opinion that the non-party 2's own opinion and the non-party 3's opinion that the plaintiff's non-party 1 had no knowledge of his own opinion.

Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the above non-party 2 was grossly negligent, cannot be said to have committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles on mistake.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)