[손실보상금][공2004.8.1.(207),1237]
[1] The case holding that the agreement constitutes a compromise contract where a person in charge of a road construction site reached an agreement to accept the decision of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee instead of withdrawing a civil lawsuit between both parties, which demanded the person in charge of a road construction site to compensate for the damages incurred by the construction works
[2] The meaning of "matters other than a dispute which is the object of reconciliation" which can be cancelled on the grounds of mistake in a reconciliation contract under the Civil Act
[1] The case holding that the agreement constitutes a compromise contract where a person in charge of a road construction site reached an agreement to accept the decision of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee instead of withdrawing a civil lawsuit between both parties and the persons in charge of a construction site who demanded compensation for damages from the construction works
[2] 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 are understood
[1] Article 733 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 733 of the Civil Act
[2] Supreme Court Decision 94Da22453 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong1996Sang, 350), Supreme Court Decision 95Da48414 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1406), Supreme Court Decision 2002Da18435 delivered on September 4, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 230)
Plaintiff
Korea Highway Corporation (Attorney Kim Shin-hwan, Counsel for defendant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na46275 delivered on June 5, 2003
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
1. After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below found facts as stated in its decision, and found that the agreement of this case was made by both the plaintiff and the defendant immediately in response to the decision of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee instead of withdrawing the lawsuit of this case seeking compensation for damages to the damages caused by the construction of this case, and it constitutes a compromise contract with the plaintiff and the defendant as a result of the decision of the Environmental Dispute Mediation Committee. Furthermore, the non-party, who is a field manager who directed and supervised the construction of this case while the non-party is in office as the head of the defendant's construction, appears to have reached the agreement of this case on behalf of the defendant at the time of the agreement, and even if the non-party did not have the power to conclude the settlement contract on behalf of the defendant at the time of the agreement of this case, the court below rejected the agreement of this case on behalf of the defendant, in light of the legal principles as to the non-party's right to represent and supervise the construction of this case and the non-party's right to represent the plaintiff and the non-party.
2. 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 that which is the object of the settlement, and "matters other than the object of the settlement" refers to matters which are the premise or basis of the dispute, 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 a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da22453 delivered on December 12, 195, etc.)
In light of the above legal principles and records, prior to the agreement in this case, the defendant argued that the plaintiff's compensation or damages claim does not fall under the grounds for compensation, or that the noise level due to construction falls short of the standard and therefore, the agreement in this case was reached in the situation that the plaintiff filed a lawsuit in this case and tried at the court of first instance. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement in this case is not a matter of mutual concession but a matter of understanding that there is no dispute but a matter of mutual concession. Therefore, the agreement in this case cannot be cancelled because the plaintiff's compensation or damages claim does not fall under the grounds for compensation for losses or damages claim, or because the plaintiff did not fall under the criteria for compensation for losses or damages due to construction works in this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of the settlement contract.
Supreme Court Decision 2001Da49326 Decided October 12, 2001 cited in the ground of appeal is not appropriate to be invoked in this case due to different cases.
3. On the other hand, the plaintiff's claim cited by the court below is not a claim for compensation for damages for the loss incurred in the mass production due to the construction works of this case or a claim for the performance of the obligation under a settlement contract, and thus, the judgment of the court below contains errors in violation of the rules of evidence, incomplete deliberation, or misunderstanding of legal principles as to the specific occurrence of the plaintiff's damage caused by the construction works
4. Therefore, the appeal is 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 Yoon Jae-chul (Presiding Justice)