1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “D” in the last sentence of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as “E”; “D February 16, 2017” in Part 3 shall be deemed as “E”; and “ February 16, 2016” in Part 4 shall be deemed as “F. February 16, 2016”; and the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance except for the addition of the following judgments as to the matters asserted by the Defendant in this court, this shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional matters to be determined;

A. The completion of the contract with the Defendant’s claim for construction work and the receipt of advance payment, etc. therefrom are included in the terms of the instant payment agreement as the motive for the conclusion of the instant payment agreement.

However, since the contract for construction work with the Sejong Electric Power was not reached, the defendant is revoked on the ground that the payment agreement in this case constitutes an expression of intent by mistake.

B. In order to revoke a juristic act on the ground that the mistake in the motive of judgment falls under an error in an important part of the contents of the juristic act, it is sufficient to indicate the motive to the other party as the content of the declaration of intention, and it is deemed that it is the content of the juristic act in the interpretation of the declaration of intention, and it is not necessary to reach an agreement to separately consider the motive as the content of the juristic act between the parties as the content of the declaration of intent. However, the error in the contents of the juristic act should be deemed to have led to the general public’s opinion, so

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da26210 delivered on September 30, 1997). In this case, at the time of the instant payment agreement, the Defendant had already entered into the instant payment agreement in the manner of entering the instant payment agreement as the contract for C Corporation, and also entered the specific contract amount, the method of calculating the down payment, such as the premium rate, and the advance payment, and thus, the instant payment agreement had already been concluded at the time of the instant payment agreement.