Sales Contract and Mistake of Annual Oil

Since the market price of an object was not known at the time of the conclusion of the sale contract, the concept of the price and the actual market price have been formed, this is merely a mistake in the situation of decision making, i.e., a mistake in the contents of the expression of intention, and therefore, there is no error in the requirements of the legal act.

Article 95 of the Civil Act

Park Jong-soo, Attorney Yang Sung-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Byung-hoon, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Seoul District Court of the first instance, the Seoul High Court of the second instance, and the Seoul High Court of the second instance 54 civilian 343 delivered on November 12, 1954

The final appeal is dismissed.

Costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The court below's decision No. 1 acknowledged the fact that the forest price of this case was sold at 1 to 5 minutes of the market price at the time of the purchase and sale contract, and it is difficult for the defendant to live, so it cannot be said that the plaintiff complied with the contract by taking advantage of the defendant's leading experience or urgent difficulties in the purchase and sale of this case. Even if the object of this case is considerably unbalanced with the market price, it is sufficient to see that it is difficult to see that the defendant's 5th through 5th through 1st five minutes of the market price at the time of the purchase and sale contract, and that it is hard to see that the defendant's 1th through 5th of the market price was sold at the time of the purchase and sale contract, and that it is hard to see that the defendant's 7th of the market price was considerably unjust because it is hard to see that the defendant's 5th of the market price was formed with the defendant's simple experience in the sale and sale of this case, and that it is hard to see the fact that the defendant's 1th of the contract.

However, even if the amount of the purchase and sale is so low as to be considerably balanced compared with the price of an object, so long as the sale and sale was not concluded without taking advantage of the experience or urgent difficulties, it cannot be deemed a invalid contract contrary to the public order and good morals. Furthermore, even if the motive for the sale was in distress, and there was a significant imbalance between the price of the object and its price, it cannot be presumed that the sale and sale took advantage of the experience or imminent difficulties of the due diligence, and thus, it is not reasonable by the court below, and the fact that the court below was lawful, because the defendant calculated 12 50 0 to 25 0 0 0 0 0 000 per average market price due to the trouble in living, and sold 73,950 0 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 1 through 5 15 0 00 00 00 00 00 00 - 11, 1992).

No. 2 of the judgment of the court below stated that the reason for the decision is that there is an error in the contents of the expression of intent that the sale price was lower than the market price due to the mere market price. However, the legislative intent of Article 95 of the Civil Act is the protection of the mistakeer, and there is no doubt of the mistake of the elements of the juristic act in order to prevent the other party from unjust damage, and there is no theory of the misunderstanding of the elements of the juristic act in the law. Therefore, the important part of the expression of intent is a matter of specific fact, and there is a controversy between the court below's decision that the mistake of the sale price is not an error in the elements of the juristic act, but it is not against the principle of trust and good faith that the sale price does not constitute a misunderstanding of the legal act in the case of a misunderstanding with the market price of the subject matter of the juristic act, i.e., where there is a difference between the sale price and the market price of the subject matter of the juristic act in question.

However, since the market price of the object was not known at the time of the conclusion of the sale contract, the concept of the price and the actual market price had been formed, this is merely a mistake in the situation of decision making, that is, there is no error in the contents of the declaration of intention, and therefore there is no error in the elements of legal act. Therefore, even if the defendant sold forest at the price of 1/5 of the market price in this case, it cannot be said that there is an error in the elements of the sale. Therefore, the court below's rejection of the defendant's note that the sale price in this case is invalid due to a mistake in the elements

For the above reasons, the appeal on this case shall be deemed groundless and it shall be ruled in accordance with Articles 401, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Justices Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Justice) Acting Justice Kim Jae-ho on the present allocation of Kim Jong-dong (Presiding Justice)