beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is reasonable, and therefore, it cited it as the ground for this judgment pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, and next, we briefly examine the main arguments repeated by the plaintiff in the appellate court
The plaintiff thought that the building of this case may be extended beyond the building-to-land ratio and floor area ratio, and the plaintiff purchased the building of this case from the defendant company, and sufficiently indicated the plaintiff's motive for such sale to the defendant company, and the plaintiff knew that it was impossible to approve the establishment of the factory due to the restriction under the Seoul Metropolitan Area Readjustment Planning Act at the time of entering into the contract of this case, the plaintiff did not enter into the contract of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's mistake concerning the important part and thus, the plaintiff
In regard to this, the Defendant Company did not claim that the Plaintiff’s motive for the sale was the content of the sales contract, and even if the content of the sales contract was the content of the sales contract, the Plaintiff did not apply for an advance examination on the approval of the establishment of a factory and was grossly negligent in omission as alleged by
In addition to the evidence presented in the appellate court’s reasoning cited in the judgment of the first instance as above, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff concluded the instant sales contract with the motive or purpose of extending the building of this case and operating it as a factory.
Even if the motive of the Plaintiff, as alleged otherwise by the Plaintiff, became the content of the instant sales contract by indicating the Defendant Company, and the mistake pertaining to the important part thereof, pursuant to the proviso of Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, if there was an error in the important part of the contents of the juristic act, and if such error was caused by the gross negligence of the observer, it did not revoke it.