(a) The case holding that if the other party was mistakenly aware of his fault as a legitimate inheritance right holder of the land and such motive was indicated at the time of the agreement, it constitutes an error in the material part of the agreement;

B. The case holding that if the agreement under Paragraph (a) is viewed as a compromise contract, whether the other party is a legitimate heir of the land or a legitimate heir of the land should be determined whether the other party is the subject of the dispute at issue

A. The case holding that if an agreement is reached between the other party to the land ownership to return the land ownership to the original state with a misleading knowledge that the land owner is a legitimate inheritor, the other party is a legitimate inheritor, and if such motive is indicated at the time of the agreement, it shall be deemed that such agreement constitutes a case where there is an error in the important part of the agreement.

B. The case holding that, since a settlement contract is not cancelled on the ground of mistake and can be cancelled only when there is an error in matters other than the dispute which is the object of the settlement party's qualification or the settlement, if the agreement in paragraph (a) above is viewed as a settlement contract, whether the other party is a legitimate heir of the land owner or whether it is the subject of the dispute or whether it is the subject of the dispute, which is the premise or basis of the dispute, and is understood as a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession.

Articles 109 and 733 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu7026 delivered on May 22, 1990 (Gong1990, 1355) (Gong1992, 89). Supreme Court Decision 91Da47208 delivered on November 12, 1991 (Gong1992, 2390), Supreme Court Decision 92Da18719, 18726 delivered on October 27, 1992 (Gong192, 3268)

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 et al.

Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 93Da2476 delivered on May 27, 1993

Gwangju District Court Decision 93Na4089 delivered on January 21, 1994

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the plaintiff's judgment in favor of the above non-party 2 on September 1, 1921 and the plaintiff's registration of ownership transfer as to the land of this case was made under the name of non-party 1 on May 1, 198 as the ground of claim that the plaintiff purchased the land of this case from the above non-party 1 on May 1, 1968, and then filed a lawsuit against the above non-party 1 who died at the time of filing a claim for the execution of the procedure for the registration of ownership transfer under the Special Case of Gwangju District Court 88DaDa11037 on the ground that the non-party 2's address was falsely stated in the complaint as the above non-party 1's address, and ordered the above non-party 2's wife to receive the litigation documents, such as a copy of complaint and a writ of date for pleading, and thus, revoked the plaintiff's registration of ownership transfer as to the above land of this case on the ground that the plaintiff's ownership transfer was cancelled.

However, according to the records, since the plaintiff appears to have been aware that the defendant is a legitimate heir of the above non-party 1, the fact that the defendant is a legitimate heir of the above non-party 1 constitutes the motive for the plaintiff to make the above agreement, and if such motive of the plaintiff was indicated at the time of the above agreement, it shall be deemed to fall under an important part of the above agreement. Therefore, if it is recognized that the plaintiff's motive was indicated at the time of the above agreement, the court below should have determined whether the defendant is a legitimate heir of the land of this case as the person with external gift, or whether the defendant is a legitimate heir of the above non-party 1 after deliberation, but the court below rejected the plaintiff's assertion on the ground that it does not fall under an important part of the above agreement. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to mistake, which points this out, and therefore, it is reasonable to determine whether the above agreement is a legitimate settlement or a dispute between the parties to a settlement or a settlement, which is the basis of mutual agreement.

2. The court below held that the above agreement does not constitute an unfair juristic act on the ground that the plaintiff was deaf at the time of the above agreement and was placed in the circumstance that the plaintiff was under investigation by the investigative agency on the defendant's complaint, and only he was under investigation by the defendant. In light of the records, the above decision of the court below is acceptable and there are no errors in matters of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as to old-age or unfair juristic act or misunderstanding of facts in violation of the rules of evidence. Further, the above decision of the court below does not include the purport of rejecting the plaintiff's assertion that the above agreement constitutes an unfair juristic act due to the plaintiff's rash or non-experience, but it does not appear that the above agreement was caused by the plaintiff's rash or non-experience, and therefore, the above agreement cannot be seen as an unlawful act or incomplete deliberation that affected the conclusion of the judgment, such as the theory of the court below, and there is no merit in this regard.

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Panel Division of the Gwangju District Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)