beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case by the court of first instance is as follows, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the new allegations made by the Plaintiff in this court, and thus, the same is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's new assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is based on the premise that he/she embezzled goods, etc. with two points, and thereby, prepared a letter of this case in order to determine the amount of damages suffered by the Defendant and determine the method of compensation. As such, even if the preparation of the letter of this case constitutes a compromise contract under the Civil Act, it constitutes a case where the purpose of compromise is erroneous in matters other than the dispute. Thus, pursuant to the proviso of Article 733 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff’s preparation of each letter of this case is revoked by the delivery of a preparatory document as of December 11, 2017, pursuant to the proviso of
Therefore, the plaintiff does not bear the obligation under the letter of this case against the defendant.
B. The settlement becomes effective when the parties have agreed to terminate a dispute by mutual concession (Article 731 of the Civil Act). Article 733 of the Civil Act provides, “The settlement agreement shall not be cancelled on the ground of mistake. However, this shall not apply where there is any error in matters other than a dispute which is the object of the settlement,” and “matters other than a dispute which is the object of the settlement” in this context refers to matters which are not the subject of a dispute, but the premise or basis of a dispute, as they are anticipated by both parties, and which are understood to be a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da70285, Dec. 27, 2007). In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to evidence A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 6, the Plaintiff and the Defendant are serving as an employee.