1. The Plaintiff’s appeal against the Defendants and each selective claim against Defendant B, added by this court, are all allowed.

1. The size and quantity of the basic fact-finding goods, the acquisition value of which in the year of acquisition is 1,000kg 20,000g 20,000; and

A. On September 18, 2008, Defendant B issued a public notice on sale of water measuring instruments, chairs, etc., including 20 containers of liquefied salt (hereinafter “the instant liquefied salt container”). Defendant C entered the instant liquefied salt container as “insulous disease” as follows in the product specification attached to the public notice on sale:

B. On September 30, 2008, the Plaintiff became a successful bidder at the auction for the sale of the above non-processed goods, and entered into a sales contract for KRW 44,100,000 for the non-processed goods including the Defendant B and the instant liquefied salt container (hereinafter “instant sales contract”). On October 7, 2008, the Plaintiff paid KRW 44,100,000 for the purchase price at Defendant B at Defendant B, and received the entirety of the above non-processed goods.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Defendant B had a duty to deliver 20 U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff pursuant to the instant sales contract. However, the Defendant B had a duty to deliver 20 U.S. dollars to the Plaintiff, instead of 20 U.S. small and medium-sized hydrogen containers, and the Plaintiff did not deliver 20 U.S. dollars even before the instant lawsuit is filed.

The plaintiff, on the ground of the above delay in performance, cancels 20 parts of the sales contract of this case as a copy of the complaint of this case on the ground of the above delay in performance.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the purchase price of KRW 38,000,000 for the purchase price of 20 U.S. dollars as to the 20 U.S. dollars, and delay damages therefor.

B. The Plaintiff entered into the instant sales contract with a mistake as to the partial revocation of the contract and as to the claim for restitution of the pertinent liquefied salt containers among the subject matter of the instant sales contract, by making an error as to the goods specification attached to the public notice of the instant sales contract, and by making an error as to the fact that they were the “in

This constitutes a mistake on the important matters of the contract.