[1] The meaning of a mistake in an important part of a juristic act and a mistake in an important part of a juristic act

[2] The case reversing the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the cancellation on the ground that any balance payment plan that the buyer shall pay the balance with a loan cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract

[1] In a case where there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, the declaration of intent may be cancelled, and in a case where there is an error in the motive of the declaration of intent, it may be cancelled by mistake in the contents of the declaration of intent only when the parties have taken the motive into account as the contents of the declaration of intent. The mistake in the important part of a juristic act shall be so important that the arbitr would not have made the declaration of intent if he had made such a mistake without such a mistake, and it shall be so important that he would not have made the declaration of intent.

[2] The case reversing and returning the judgment of the court below which acknowledged the cancellation on the ground that the purchaser's remaining payment method or plan for the remaining payment of a loan cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract, on the grounds that the purchaser's remaining payment method or plan for the remaining payment of a loan cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract, on the grounds that the purchaser's remaining payment method or plan for the remaining payment of a loan cannot be deemed as an important part of the sales contract, on the grounds that the purchaser's remaining payment method or plan for the remaining payment of a loan was established by putting the real estate into a bank, etc. and agreed to obtain a loan from the seller to cooperate with the seller before the remaining payment was made

[1] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 109(1) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1271 delivered on January 17, 1989 (Gong1989, 285) Supreme Court Decision 94Da60318 delivered on May 23, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 2234), Supreme Court Decision 95Da5516 delivered on November 21, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 47)

Plaintiff (Attorney Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant 1 and one other (Attorney Lee Young-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 93Na4238 delivered on September 21, 1993

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. The court below accepted the plaintiff's claim for revocation by recognizing that the plaintiff caused an error as to the important part of the terms of the contract of this case, and the summary of the reasoning of the judgment below is as follows.

The court below, based on the evidence of this case, ordered the defendants to cooperate with the above defendants in purchasing 422,00,000 won of the real estate (the 4th floor floor building and its site) of this case from the defendants, since the plaintiff prepared only the down payment and the intermediate payment, and failed to prepare it, and concluded a contract because it was impossible for the non-party to pay the remainder of 182,00,000 won, the non-party knew that it would be able to obtain a loan from the bank or insurance company prior to the payment of the remainder of the real estate of this case, and notified the defendants of the above financial situation and to pay the remainder of the loan. Thus, the plaintiff agreed to obtain a loan from the bank or insurance company as collateral prior to the payment of the remainder of the purchase price and agreed to obtain a loan from the above company or insurance company. However, according to the above provisions of the bank or insurance company at the time of the above contract, the plaintiff did not have any motive to obtain the above loan as collateral and did not have any motive to obtain the above loan from the non-party 3 as collateral.

2. However, we cannot accept such fact-finding and decision of the court below.

The declaration of intent may be cancelled when there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, and in a case where there is an error in the motive of the declaration of intent, it may be cancelled only when the parties have made the motive of the declaration of intent as the content of the declaration of intent (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1271, Jan. 17, 1989). The mistake in the important part of a juristic act shall be important to the extent that it would not have made the declaration of intent if there was no such a mistake, and it shall be important to the extent that it would not have made such a declaration of intent if there was no such a mistake.

The Plaintiff, upon purchasing the instant real estate, formulated a plan to prepare a balance of loans by putting the said real estate in a bank, etc. and obtaining the loan prior to the payment of the balance, and notified the Defendants of the plan to raise such funds at the Plaintiff’s request, and promised to cooperate with the Plaintiff in obtaining the loan from the bank, etc. before the payment of the balance. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendants indicated the circumstance that the Plaintiff would not purchase the instant real estate in the event that the Plaintiff could not properly obtain the loan, or that the Defendants knew of such circumstance. In light of the records, even if examining the relevant evidence cited by the lower court, it cannot be sufficiently proven that the above circumstance was indicated by the Defendants and that the Defendants knew of such circumstance, and thus, it cannot be said that the Plaintiff’s remaining payment method or plan that the Plaintiff intended to pay the balance with the above loan was an important part of the content of the instant sales contract.

Nevertheless, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to errors in the important part of the contents of a juristic act or by misunderstanding the facts that the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim of revocation on the ground of the plaintiff's mistake on the ground of an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, or by misunderstanding the facts contrary to the rules of evidence, since the plaintiff tried to pay any balance after obtaining a loan from the bank, etc. with the real property of this case as security, which was impossible to obtain a loan under the relevant provisions at that time. The appeal is with merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the lower court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-soo (Presiding Justice)