[1] The meaning of "matters other than dispute which can be cancelled on the ground of mistake in a reconciliation contract under the Civil Act"

[2] Requirements and validity of partial revocation of a juristic act

[1] Where a settlement contract is concluded under the Civil Act, the parties to the settlement contract may not cancel it on the grounds of mistake. However, the parties to the settlement may cancel it 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, and "matters other than the object of the settlement" here refers to matters which are not the object of the dispute but the premise or basis of the dispute, which are scheduled by both parties, and which are understood as facts

[2] Even if there is a ground for revocation only for a part of a single juristic act, if the juristic act is divisible or part of the subject matter can be specified, the remaining part may be revoked if the party's assumptive intent to maintain it is acknowledged, and the partial revocation shall take effect as to the part of the juristic act.

[1] Articles 109 and 733 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 137 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 91Da47208 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2390), Supreme Court Decision 94Da22453 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 350), Supreme Court Decision 95Da48414 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1406) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da36062 delivered on February 14, 1992 (Gong192, 1028), Supreme Court Decision 97Da4737 delivered on February 10, 198 (Gong198, 686), Supreme Court Decision 97Da67979 delivered on March 26, 199 (Gong6797 delivered on March 6, 199)

Plaintiff (Attorney Lee In-hee, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Shin-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 99Na3563 delivered on February 1, 2002

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

1. Where a settlement contract is entered into under the Civil Act, the parties may not cancel it on the ground of mistake, provided that the parties may cancel it only when there is an error in matters other than those which are the object of the settlement party's qualification or the object of the settlement, and "matters other than the object of the settlement" is not the object of the dispute, but the subject of the dispute, which is the premise or basis of the dispute, which is scheduled by both parties, and which is understood as a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da48414 delivered on April 11, 1997).

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below rejected the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on this case, on the ground that the plaintiff infringed the defendant's patent registration (patent registration number 1 omitted) and utility model right (patent registration number 2 omitted), and the defendant's application for design registration (patent registration number 3 omitted) and utility model registration (patent registration number 4 omitted) on May 6, 1997 with respect to electric wires saving, and it is hard to view that the defendant's application for design registration (patent registration number 5 omitted), again on October 1, 1997, three applications for design registration (patent registration number 5 omitted), (patent registration number 6 omitted), (patent registration number 7 omitted), and it is hard to view that the defendant's agreement on the design registration and utility model registration of this case, which is the purpose of which the plaintiff's request for a compromise and design registration, still remains invalid under the premise that the plaintiff's agreement on the design registration and utility model registration of this case, which is the purpose of which the plaintiff's request for a compromise and design registration, is invalid under the Civil Act.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above fact-finding and determination by the court below are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the plaintiff's product's improvement proposal, or misconception of facts or infringement of rights due to violation of the rules of evidence, presumption of premise and interpretation of contract, validity of utility model registration, and validity of publicly notified design registration.

2. According to the records, although the plaintiff asserted that the settlement contract of this case was so unfair as a very unfair juristic act in the complaint and the briefs dated April 16, 2001, it is obvious that the above invalidation claim was withdrawn by maintaining only the revocation claim due to an error (965 pages) in the application form for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim on November 14, 2001. Thus, there is no error in the misapprehension of the judgment of the court below as to the nullity claim.

3. Even if there exists a cause for revocation only for a part of a single juristic act, if the juristic act is in a divisible or part of the subject matter can be identified, even for the remaining part, if the party who seeks to maintain it recognizes the assumptive intent of the party, that part may be revoked, and such revocation shall take effect as to the part of the juristic act (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da44737 delivered on February 10, 1998).

According to the records, the settlement contract of this case is concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant in order to comprehensively compensate for damages suffered by the defendant by infringing on the plaintiff's trademark registration number 1 omitted) and the (patent registration number 2 omitted) one utility model registration and four design registration for electric wires, and manufacturing and selling goods similar to the registration, and at the same time to be exempted from criminal punishment, the amount of damage caused by the infringement is not separately calculated for each utility model or design registration. Thus, the settlement contract of this case cannot be deemed to be a case where the object can be divided or part of the registered object can be specified.

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the plaintiff's claim for revocation on the ground that it is difficult to see that there was an error in the important part concerning the validity of a utility model registration and a design registration, and there is no error of law in the misapprehension

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

Justices Son Ji-yol (Presiding Justice)