[2] In a case where the victim could not receive a certain amount of retirement allowance that the victim could have continued to work without any accident, whether the perpetrator shall compensate for the amount of the amount of the said retirement allowance with lost profit (affirmative)

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

According to the provisions of Article 733 of the Civil Code, a compromise contract may not be cancelled on the ground of mistake except when there is an error in matters other than the dispute which is the object of the compromise party's qualification or the settlement. However, if a compromise contract is concluded by fraud, it may be cancelled in accordance with Article 110 of the Civil Code even when there is an error in matters concerning the dispute which is the object

Upon citing the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the agreement of this case was concluded by Nonparty 1's deception and thus revoked by the plaintiffs' declaration of revocation on the ground that the non-party 1's brothers and sisters were not entitled to receive the survivors' pension, etc. under the Public Officials Pension Act, and therefore the defendant also did not have an obligation to pay the amount equivalent to the retirement allowances of the non-party 3, and since the non-party 2 made the agreement of this case including the non-party 1's special agreement to file a lawsuit in trust with the non-party 2

However, the argument in this part of the grounds of appeal is that the error of Nonparty 2, which caused the agreement in this case, is about the dispute which is the object of reconciliation, and thus the agreement in this case cannot be revoked on the grounds of mistake. This is a different premise from the aforementioned legal principles, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

In the event that the victim has been paid a certain amount of retirement benefits due to his/her continuous service in the absence of an accident, and he/she was unable to receive a certain amount of retirement benefits due to an accident, the perpetrator shall compensate for the amount equivalent to the amount of the retirement benefits that the victim was unable to receive, and this does not change because the victim was a public official.

In this case where the plaintiffs sought payment of the retirement allowance as the heir of Nonparty 3, the argument in the grounds of appeal purporting that the plaintiffs cannot claim the retirement allowance as the beneficiary of bereaved family benefits under the Public Officials Pension Act is merely an independent opinion and cannot be accepted.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant-Appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)