The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1. Purport of the claim.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition or supplementary decision as stated in the following Paragraph 2 as to the part asserted by the defendant as the reason for appeal, and therefore, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Defendant’s assertion 1) perceived that the purchase price of the instant contract includes the price that would not utilize D’s image, which is the D’s brand, and this constitutes an error in the important part of the legal act subject to Article 109 of the Civil Act, and thus, the instant contract is revoked. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is without merit. 2) Since the Plaintiff established the Plaintiff on January 9, 2017, which was after the conclusion of the instant contract, and made the F’s new brand, and thereby committed an illegal act, such as the color of “E” and the reproduction of the product package, which is the D’s brand, the Plaintiff’s claim for remainder of the instant contract constitutes an abuse of rights.

B. Determination 1) An expression of intent by mistake refers to an expression of intent that is inferred from an expression of intent that is inconsistent with the intention that is inferred from the expression, and that is not aware of such disagreement. Only when there is an error in the important part of the contents of a juristic act, it may be cancelled. The expression of intent by mistake is important to such an extent that it would have been thought that if there was no such error, the person who made a mistake in the important part of the juristic act would not have made the said expression of intent. It should be so important to the extent that it would have been thought that such expression of intent would not have been made if there was an ordinary person’s position (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2019Da288232, Mar. 26, 2020). However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that there was an error in the conclusion of the contract in this case, or that the mistake was an important part of the contents of the juristic act.