Requirements for the cancellation of a declaration of intent on the ground of mistake in motive

In order to cancel a declaration of intention on the grounds that there has been an error in the motive for the declaration of intention, the motive shall be the case where the other party is indicated and where the mistake in the important part of the contents of declaration.

Article 109 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 78Da2493 Decided March 27, 1979 (Gong1979, 11901) decided October 23, 1984 (Gong1984, 184), Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1271 Decided January 17, 1989 (Gong1989, 285)

Attorney Han Han-chul et al., Counsel for the defendant

Attorney Park Jong-yang, Counsel for the defendant-appellant of Korea Land Development Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 89Na18162 delivered on January 30, 1990

All applications for the final appeal are dismissed.

1. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 1

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiff concluded a sales contract with the defendant to purchase the real estate of this case with the knowledge that it is possible to construct a high-rise apartment of national housing scale on the ground of the real estate of this case, but the real estate of this case was not able to construct a high-rise apartment on that ground from the time of conclusion of the sales contract due to security reasons due to the relation located near the Seoul Base District. Since there was an error in the motive for concluding the above sales contract and the motive was indicated to the defendant, the plaintiff's assertion that the above sales contract was cancelled by delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case and the return of the down payment of 620,070,000 won paid to the defendant as the restoration of the original state, the court below acknowledged that the plaintiff could not construct a high-rise apartment as stated in the reasoning of the judgment below, and that there was an error in the motive for purchasing the real estate of this case, and rejected the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff purchased the above real estate of this case on the ground that there was no significant's motive for cancellation.

In light of the records, the decision of the court below is just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of declaration of intention due to mistake of facts or mistake due to the violation of the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

2. The plaintiff's ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the cancellation of the instant sales contract on the ground of the Plaintiff’s intermediate payment and payment of residual payments was lawful, and it was unlawful because it was against the good faith principle and the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was unlawful because it was an abuse of rights.

In light of the records, the above measures of the court below are just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of contract, and therefore there is no ground to point this out.

3. The defendant's ground for appeal is examined.

The issue is that the penalty agreement of this case set the penalty rather than the scheduled amount of compensation, but it is a new argument that is not asserted by the fact-finding court, so it is not acceptable.

4. Therefore, all applications for appeal are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Lee Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)