[1] In a case where the decision of the urban management planning to newly build a neighboring park which is an urban planning facility in the real estate unit after concluding a real estate sales contract with Gap corporation and the State, was publicly notified, the case affirming the judgment below that Gap corporation cannot cancel the contract on the ground of mistake, on the ground that although Gap corporation's motive to purchase the real estate was an important part of the sales contract, although Gap corporation's motive to purchase the real estate was virtually difficult to carry out a housing development project in the real estate unit, it was because Gap corporation's error lacks ordinary attention required in purchasing

[2] Where cancellation of a contract is recognized due to changes in circumstances

[3] In a case where the decision of an urban management planning that newly establishes a neighboring park, which is an urban planning facility, after entering into a real estate sales contract with Gap corporation and the State, was publicly notified, the case holding that even if Gap corporation's intended housing development project was practically difficult, maintaining the validity of the sales contract as it is due to such change of circumstance cannot be deemed as violating the good faith principle

[1] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 2 and 543 of the Civil Act / [3] Articles 2 and 543 of the Civil Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 2004Da31302 Decided March 29, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 601) Supreme Court Decision 2008Da44368 Decided June 24, 201 (Gong2011Ha, 1451)

Daejin General Construction Co., Ltd. (LLC, Kim & Lee LLC, Attorneys Park Dong-dong et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2010Na530 decided September 30, 2010

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its adopted evidence, and found it difficult for the plaintiff to carry on the housing development project in the real estate of this case because the decision of the urban management plan (amended) to newly build a neighboring park, which is an urban planning facility, was publicly announced on the real estate of this case, and determined that the plaintiff's assertion on the cancellation of the sales contract of this case was groundless, since it was reasonable to deem that the plaintiff's motive for the purchase of the real estate of this case was an important part of the sales contract of this case, since it was reasonable to view that the plaintiff's motive for the purchase of the real estate of this case was an important part of the sales contract of this case, in light of the facts and circumstances recognized by the adopted evidence, since the plaintiff's error was significantly lacking in the attention normally required in the purchase of real estate as a housing development company, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the grounds of mistake was groundless.

In light of the relevant legal principles and all the circumstances revealed in the record, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of legal act caused by mistake, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. The ground of appeal pointing this out

2. As to the third ground for appeal

A contract rescission due to change of circumstances occurs due to a significant change of circumstances that could not have been predicted by the parties at the time of the formation of the contract, and such change of circumstances occurred due to a cause not attributable to the party who acquired the right to cancel, and if the binding force is acknowledged in accordance with the contents of the contract, it is recognized as an exception to the principle of contract observance in cases where the result substantially goes against the good faith principle (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2004Da31302, Mar. 29, 2007; 2008Da44368, Jun

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, the following facts are revealed: (a) at the time of the conclusion of the instant sales contract, the specific use area of the instant real estate unit was a Class-I general residential area among urban areas; (b) Cheongju-si, after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, publicly announced the “Determination of the Cheongju-si Urban Management Planning (Modification) in 2015, including the content that newly constructs neighboring parks, which are urban planning facilities, in the real estate unit of the instant real estate.”

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, even if the Plaintiff’s intended housing development project was practically difficult due to the announcement of the determination of the instant urban management plan after the conclusion of the instant sales contract, there is always the possibility of causing new restrictions on construction due to the amendment of the relevant laws and regulations, etc., and such risk seems to normally be borne by the buyer in the transaction, and in light of all other circumstances indicated in the record, maintaining the validity of the instant sales contract as it is cannot be deemed to go against the good faith principle.

Therefore, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's assertion that the contract of this case was cancelled on the grounds of change of circumstances is just and acceptable. There is no violation of law by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence against logical and empirical rules, by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence, by misapprehending the legal principles on the cancellation of contract due to change of circumstances, or by inconsistency in the reasoning of

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion of reduction in compensation for damages on the ground that it is difficult to view that, even if considering the Plaintiff’s assertion, the scheduled amount of compensation for damages set at an amount equivalent to 10% of the purchase price would result in unfair pressure on the debtor who is in the position of the economically weak and thus lose fairness.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above measures of the court below are just and acceptable, and there is no violation of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to reduction of the estimated amount of damages, as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. This part of the grounds of appeal is without merit.

4. 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 Jeon Soo-ahn (Presiding Justice)