In a case where there is an error in the important part of a sales contract, whether the buyer can cancel the sales contract on the ground of an error regardless of whether the seller’s warranty liability is established (affirmative)

According to Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, where there is an error in the important part of the content of a juristic act, a person who is not grossly negligent may cancel a juristic act. According to Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act, if there is a defect in the object of a sale, a buyer who was unaware of the defect without negligence may cancel a contract or claim damages against a seller by asking the seller for the warranty liability. The revocation system due to an error and the seller’s warranty liability system are different from the purport, and are distinguishable from the requirements and effect. Therefore, if there is an error in the important part of the content of a sales contract, the buyer may cancel a sales contract on the ground of an error, regardless of whether

Articles 109(1), 575(1), and 580(1) of the Civil Act

Plaintiff (Attorney Go-do et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm private, Attorney Kim Gyeong-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na4841 decided December 3, 2015

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

(1) According to Article 109(1) of the Civil Act, in a case where there is an error in the important part of the content of a juristic act, a person who is not grossly negligent may cancel such juristic act. According to Articles 580(1) and 575(1) of the Civil Act, a buyer who was unaware of the existence of a defect in the object of sale without negligence may cancel the contract or claim damages against the seller by asking the seller for the warranty against the defect. The revocation system due to an error and the seller’s warranty liability system are different from each other, and the requirements and effect are distinguishable. Therefore, in a case where there is an error in the important part of the content of the contract, the buyer may cancel the contract on the grounds of an error, regardless of whether the seller’s warranty liability

(2) The court below rejected the defendant's assertion that among paintings purchased by the plaintiff from the defendant, each paintings No. 1, No. 3, and No. 6 in the judgment of the court below, each paintings No. 1, No. 1, and No. 3, and No. 6 in the judgment of the court below, and that the plaintiff's purchase of each paintings No. 1, which the plaintiff was known to the plaintiff as a prone is erroneous in the important part of the contents of the legal act. Thus, the court below lawfully revoked the contract of this case by the plaintiff's declaration of revocation on the ground that the parts of paintings No. 1, No. 3, and No. 6 in the contract of this case were erroneous.

Examining the record in accordance with the legal principles as seen earlier, the above determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine on mistake and warranty liability.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

For reasons indicated in its holding, the lower court determined that the paintings Nos. 2 and 3 through 6 of the judgment of the lower court included in the sales object of this case. Based on this, the lower court calculated the amount of unjust enrichment to be returned from the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff simultaneously with the delivery of paintings Nos. 1, 3, and 6 as indicated in its reasoning.

Examining the record, the lower court’s aforementioned determination is justifiable. In so doing, it did not err by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations or exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules.

3. Conclusion

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 Min You-sook (Presiding Justice)