logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.01 2018나2044419
매매대금반환
Text

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.

Reasons

1. The reasons for this Court’s acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, or the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the allegation that the plaintiff added to this case, as set forth in paragraph (2). Thus, this Court shall accept it in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

The phrase "4.8 of the first instance court's decision" is identical to "10 of the same 4.8 of the first instance court's decision", but the phrase "B" does not clearly explain the existence of columns inside F., but the parties do not dispute "."

Part 4, "Nos. 1, 5, and 6 of A" shall be understood as "Evidence Nos. 1, 5, 6, and 5 and 8 of A".

Part 4 15 "The fact that it is confirmed" is added to "(if there are columns inside the commercial part other than F in the drawing of the part of the first floor among the above guide books, there is a case where there is a pole inside the commercial part other than F, and the structure in the rectangular shape is marked in the same place as F)."

The 6th parallel 15 to 7th parallel 17th parallel are as follows:

The declaration of intent may be cancelled in a case where 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. The mistake in the important part of a juristic act shall be so important that it would not have made the said declaration of intent if there was no such a mistake, and it shall be so important that it would not have made the said declaration of intent if there was no such a mistake.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da5487, Mar. 26, 1996; 98Da45546, Apr. 23, 1999). As to the instant case, the Plaintiff is anticipated not to have a pillar inside the Fho Lake, and the sales contract is concluded.

arrow