All
| TITLE | 【Syllabus of Latest Opinion】 Supreme Court Decision 2024Da206760 Decided August 1, 2024 【Lawsuit for Return of Donations】 [full Text] |
|---|---|
| Summary | |
| 【Main Issues and Holdings】 [1] With respect to a contract of gift in the nature of donation or sponsorship for a specific purpose, matters to be considered when determining whether the purpose thereof is related to any essential elements of the contract stipulated in Article 109 of the Civil Act [2] Where the awareness of a person who expressed his or her intention includes the recognition for current circumstances that became the basis of the prediction or expectation, not staying in the simple prediction or expectation of any matters in the future at the time of a juristic act, and such awareness is in discord with the facts that exist for real, whether such declaration of intention may be seen to be made under a mistake (affirmative) [3] In a case where Social Welfare Foundation A is a corporation operating nursing houses, social welfare facilities, etc. for sexual slavery victims drafted for the Japanese imperial army, and Party B has sent donations to the bank account for general sponsorship to support activities for the livelihood, welfare, and testimony of the elderly Korean women who were enforced to work as sexual slaves under the Japanese colonial rule according to the sponsorship guide of the Social Welfare Foundation A, but due to a series of disclosure and media reports made to the effect that most of the donations are reserved in the corporation and have not been used for sexual slavery victims drafted for the Japanese imperial army properly, Party B demanded the return of the donations against Social Welfare Foundation A, the case holding that the purpose of a sponsorship contract made between Social Welfare Foundation A and Party B, as a contract of gift in the nature of donation or sponsorship for a specific purpose, which is to support activities related to sexual slavery victims drafted for the Japanese imperial army, corresponds to any essential elements of the contract, and there exists inconsistency that may be deemed a mistake between the purpose of the sponsorship contract that Social Welfare Foundation A expressed and Party B was aware of and the present status of the actual use of the donations, and thus Party B may cancel the sponsorship contract on the grounds that the declaration of intention was made under a mistake | |
