beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the following judgments, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article
2. Additional determination
A. The Defendant’s assertion was found to be a mistake that there is a legal ground to recover the Defendant’s external service earnings, and the Defendant prepared and issued the instant implementation plan, which was caused by the Plaintiff. As such mistake was caused by the Plaintiff, the Defendant would pay KRW 40,304,570 by April 24, 2017 according to the instant implementation plan.
“The” asserts that the declaration of intention is cancelled.
B. In light of the background leading up to the preparation of the implementation plan of this case by the defendant, which is acknowledged by each description of No. 2, No. 2, No. 5, and No. 8 through No. 10, the defendant is more in the disciplinary procedure against him.
The execution plan of this case shall not be deemed to have been prepared and issued because it is determined that the implementation plan of this case was prepared and issued in favor of the plaintiff, and there is a mistake that there is a legal ground to recover the profits from the plaintiff. In domestic affairs, the defendant prepared and delivered the implementation plan of this case, resulting in such mistake.
Even if such mistake constitutes a mistake in motive, and if there is an error in the motive for expression of intent, it may be cancelled by mistake in the content of declaration of intent only when the parties have taken the motive into account as the content of the expression of intent. However, in a case where a mistake in motive is provided or induced by the other party, revocation is recognized regardless of whether the motive is indicated (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 97Da6063, Aug. 26, 1997). In this case, it is insufficient to recognize that such mistake was caused by the Plaintiff solely based on the evidence submitted by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.
Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.
3. Conclusion