[손해배상(자)][공1989.9.15.(856),1295]
Interpretation of an agreement that the victim agrees to receive a certain amount of compensation for losses caused by a tort and waives the remainder of claims.
If the perpetrator and the victim agree to give up the remainder of the claim for damages due to a tort, it shall not be able to accept the claim for damages exceeding the agreed amount on the ground that the damage was incurred ex post facto, but if such agreement was reached, the victim shall not be interpreted to have given up the right to claim damages even if active medical expenses or post-treatment that could not have been anticipated at the time of the occurrence of the damage, which could not be anticipated as well as the damage that could not have been anticipated at the time of the occurrence of the damage.
Article 763 of the Civil Act
Supreme Court Decision 80Da1568 Decided November 25, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 Decided April 27, 1988
[Judgment of the court below]
Attorney Jeon Jong-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant
Seoul High Court Decision 88Na25569 delivered on December 8, 1988
The judgment of the court below is reversed.
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
The total costs of litigation shall be borne by the plaintiff.
As to ground of appeal No. 1:
If the tortfeasor and the injured party have agreed to give up a certain amount of claim for damages caused by a tort and the injured party, it shall be reasonable to deem that it would not be possible to accept the claim for damages exceeding the agreed amount on the ground that the above amount was incurred later. However, in a case where all damages were paid a little amount under the circumstances where it is not clearly identified, and the above agreement was reached, the claim for damages that was abandoned at the time of the agreement should be interpreted as merely for the damages that could have been predicted at the time of the agreement, but for the active treatment costs or post-treatment which could not have been anticipated at the time of the agreement, it shall not be interpreted as the waiver of the claim for damages even if the damage was incurred later (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74, Apr. 27, 198).
In this case, although the court below determined that the above agreement cannot be an obstacle to the plaintiff's claim of this case, it does not constitute a requirement for limited interpretation as to the agreement between the parties, by comparing the reasoning of the agreement with the records (in particular, it cannot be deemed that the treatment and post-treatment of the plaintiff was beyond the expected scope at the time of the agreement).
Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed without examining the other points on the grounds that the parties concerned are contrary to the agreement on the lawsuit and that point out this, and the judgment of the court below is sufficient to render a final judgment. It is so decided as follows. The judgment of the court of first instance which dismissed the plaintiff's claim for objection on the same ground that the plaintiff's claim for damages in this case was instituted in violation of the agreement on the lawsuit, and it is unlawful as there is no benefit in the protection of rights. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench that the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)