1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows: "Witness of the witness E of the first instance court and the second instance court's decision" in Chapter 4 of the first instance court's decision and "E of the witness of the first instance court and the second instance court's decision" in Chapters 21 to 5 and 12 of the second instance court's decision. The part above-mentioned is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance court's decision except for the case's height like the recorded part", and therefore, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

A person shall be appointed.

C. 1) Determination on the Plaintiff’s gross negligence (Preliminary Determination) even if the motive for concluding the first and second sales contract by the Plaintiff was written to the Defendant and the appointed parties, and thus, it is determined that the Plaintiff’s omission in such mistake was due to a lack of ordinary required care as a purchaser of land for the purpose of new construction of electric house and sale, in light of the relevant legal principles, in view of the following circumstances revealed in light of the following: (a) evidence Nos. 13, 15, 19 (including where there is a serial number); (b) evidence No. 12; (c) witness E of the first instance and the first instance trial; and (d) witness E of the first instance trial; and (c) fact-finding as to the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management of the District Construction and Management of the first instance court

① Although the motive for a juristic act is indicated by the other party as the content of the pertinent declaration of intention and is the subject matter of a juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention, it cannot be cancelled when a mistake is caused by gross negligence of the other party. Here, “serious negligence” refers to a lack of attention ordinarily required in light of the name, type, purpose, etc. of the mark.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 200Da12259 Decided May 12, 200, and Supreme Court Decision 2011Da106976, 106983 Decided September 27, 2012, etc.). (2) The Plaintiff, as the representative director of G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) that manufactures and sells cosmetics, operates the said company.