A legal representative Lee ○○○

Litigation performer Kim○-○

Gangwon-gu Armed Forces

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

J. D. 20% interest per annum until the date of full payment.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts may be acknowledged in the evidence Nos. 1 through 12, and No. 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. On February 5, 2002, the Plaintiff established a Special Civil Petition Compensation Deliberation Committee (hereinafter “Special Civil Petition Deliberation Committee”) to deliberate and decide on the fact-finding of a person who performed a special duty and his/her bereaved family members in the Information Headquarters under the Ministry of National Defense, the purpose of which is to gather information on a special content and form of information (hereinafter “Special Duty”).

B. On November 2002, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s husband constituted a person who performed a special military mission (the deceased’s death on April 7, 2001, hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) and filed an application for the payment of the above compensation on the severe weather alerts along with a letter of personality guarantee of Kim○○ (the evidence No. 1, hereinafter referred to as “the application for the payment of the above compensation”) and the reasons asserted by the Defendant at the time are as follows.

○ Work period (Date of Admission to Another Person and Date of Discharge from Military Service): March 5, 1951; - October 1954

○ Its name: No. 4863 Unit 36 District Unit

○ Working Area: Inter-Korean Head Office for the Jin-Jin-Jak in North Korea

○ At the time of status (grade officers): Kim ○○

○ At the time of : ○○, Hab, ○

【○○’s performance of the duties/Recoverys: North Korea / three times. After conducting an external investigation on the deceased’s work and the details of his activities, the severe weather alert was conducted on March 1952, 1952, rather than on March 3, 1951 claimed by the Defendant, and confirmed that the deceased was engaged in kidnapping at the ○○ Construction Project on April 1952, and that on October 25 of the same year, on June 25, 2003, he/she performed two special duties, such as serving at the ○○ Construction Project, and confirmed that on June 25, 2003, he/she paid the Defendant a compensation amount of KRW 32,820,00, 10,000, 10,000, 42,820, and 00,000.

D. Accordingly, on July 2003, the Defendant: “The applicant has no objection to the decision on the payment of the compensation against the deceased, and accordingly submitted the consent and written claim for the payment of the compensation. When the above compensation is paid, the settlement contract is entered into with respect to the special military personnel, and the applicant shall not make any further claim in any way with respect to this case. The applicant agrees to return all or part of the compensation in any of the following cases:

① In a case where the payment of the above-mentioned compensation, etc. was made by fraud or other improper means, ② in a case where the payment was made by mistake, submission of the consent and written claim for the payment of the above-mentioned compensation (No. 3; hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) was made, and received KRW 42,820,000 from the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Despite the fact that the Deceased did not perform a special mission, the Plaintiff, due to the Defendant’s deception or mistake, misleads the Deceased as constituting a person who performed a special mission, and paid compensation of KRW 42,820,00 to the Defendant based on a compromise contract based on the instant written claim, and thereafter, paid compensation of KRW 42,820,

6. In light of the deceased’s knowledge that he did not perform his special duties, the settlement contract was cancelled. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 42,820,00, and damages for delay on the return of unjust enrichment thereby.

B. Determination

(1) First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant, while applying for the payment of the above compensation in the instant case, deceiving the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit.

(2) Next, as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of revocation due to the Plaintiff’s mistake, it is insufficient to recognize that there was no fact that the Deceased performed special duties after July 1953 on or around that day, the deceased did not have any evidence to acknowledge that there was no other fact that the Deceased performed special duties on or around April 1952, and around October 1953. Moreover, even if the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized as a mistake, the Plaintiff’s legal relationship constitutes a kind of compromise contract based on the preparation of the instant claim, the Defendant’s legal relationship constitutes a kind of compromise contract, and the Plaintiff did not revoke the instant compromise contract on the grounds that the Plaintiff did not constitute a person who performed a special military mission (Article 733 of the Civil Act). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not reasonable.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.