Where both parties who have performed a juristic act have expressed their intent to revoke the juristic act at any time, but there is no ground for revocation, whether the juristic act has become null and void.

After the agreement was reached between Gap and Eul to determine the amount of liability for compensation for losses, Gap expressed his/her intent to revoke each of the above agreements on the grounds that the agreement was reached by duress, on the grounds that the agreement was reached by mistake, but as long as it is not deemed that there was a ground for revocation as otherwise alleged in the above agreement, the mere fact that both Eul and Eul expressed their intent to revoke the above agreement does not lose its effect upon cancellation.

Articles 105 and 141 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Lee Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellant] Korea Biosil Co., Ltd. and one other, Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant-appellant]

Busan High Court Decision 92Na1902 delivered on October 22, 1993

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The defendants' attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the records, although the plaintiff compensates the defendant company for the amount of 128,237,747 won, the defendants agreed on January 20, 1985 that the plaintiff should compensate the defendant company for the amount of 66,200,000 won among the plaintiff by mistake, so the court below is just in rejecting the defendants' assertion that the above agreement should be revoked, and there is no error of law in misunderstanding the rules of evidence by violating the rules of evidence, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Upon examining the record, the plaintiff expressed his/her intent to cancel the above agreement on the ground that the above agreement was reached by coercion as of January 20, 1985, and the defendants expressed their intent to cancel the agreement on the ground that the above agreement was reached by duress. However, as long as it is not acknowledged that there was a ground for revocation as alleged in the above agreement, the mere fact that both the plaintiff and the defendants expressed their intent to cancel the above agreement does not lose its validity by cancellation of the above agreement, and therefore, the theory of lawsuit claiming the above agreement is without merit.

In addition, if either the plaintiff and the defendants made an offer to terminate the validity of the agreement on January 20, 1985, and the other parties agreed or expressed their intent to lose the validity of the agreement with the assent of both parties, and there was a new agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to lose the validity of the agreement, the agreement shall be deemed null and void. However, as the court below duly admitted, the court below requested the other party to reduce or increase the amount because the confirmed losses are more or less than the actual losses, and requested that the other party to reduce or increase the amount, but the other party did not accept the other party's request, and if the plaintiff and the defendants refused the claim for reduction on the grounds of the above agreement, it cannot be deemed that there was a new agreement between the plaintiff and the defendants to extinguish the validity of the agreement, and therefore, the court below just and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to all the arguments.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cho Chang-tae (Presiding Justice)