Whether a mistake in the market price in the sale of a real estate is an error in the important part of a juristic act (negative)

An error in regard to the market price as a result of the sale of a immovables shall be only the error of the motive, and shall not be deemed an error in any important part of the juristic act.

Article 109 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 350, Apr. 10, 1984) (Law No. 1984, Apr. 23, 1985) (Gong1985,780)

Samsung Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Kim Go-su

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na3028 delivered on November 1, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the defendant sold the real estate of this case to the plaintiff KRW 110,00,000, and decided that there is no dispute between the parties concerned, and that the market price of the real estate of this case exceeds KRW 220,000,00,000, and rejected the defendant's assertion that the sale of the real estate of this case to the plaintiff at a much higher price than the market price as above with Sora and experience is a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness and is not an invalid number of days, and there is no violation of law by misunderstanding the legal principles or by misunderstanding the rules of evidence as alleged

In addition, it is reasonable to reject the defendant's assertion on the same purport, since the error in the market price in the sale of real estate is merely merely a mistake in the motive, and cannot be said to be a mistake in the important part of the juristic act.

In addition, as determined by the court below, if the sale and purchase of the real estate of this case was conducted between the plaintiff and the defendant, the above sales contract cannot be unilaterally cancelled or cancelled on the ground that the price is lower than the market price, and even if the defendant deposited the amount of the down payment to the plaintiff and expressed his intention of rescission, as determined by the court below, the contract cancellation cannot be effective as long as the plaintiff had already commenced the execution of the contract by paying and depositing the nominal amount to the defendant at the time of the payment of the intermediate payment and the balance, so the measure of the court below rejecting the defendant's assertion on the same purport does not contain errors in the

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-sung (Presiding Justice)