[손해배상][집16(2)민,032]
Cases where the interpretation of a juristic act on waiver of a claim is erroneous;
In order to claim consolation money due to the death of the deceased non-party Gap, it is reasonable to deem that the "this case" refers to the case of claiming consolation money that has been actually continued to the Ministry of Justice, which was submitted to the Minister of Justice by claiming compensation of 30,000 won and received compensation for all other damages due to the main case.
Article 2 of the State Compensation Act
Supreme Court Decision 66Da2346 delivered on January 24, 1967
Plaintiff 1 and one other
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na875 delivered on February 23, 1967, Seoul High Court Decision 66Na875 delivered on February 23, 1967
The original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff et al. are examined.
According to the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the non-party 1 driven the military vehicle due to negligence while driving the military vehicle on official duty, and recognized the fact that the non-party 2, who is the deceased non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's son, had already been paid 30,000 won to the Minister of Justice for the accident, and then, the plaintiff et al. has waived his right to claim for all damages due to the accident. Thus, the plaintiff et al. has rejected the plaintiff's claim for the above non-party 2's passive damages without merit. However, considering the contents of Gap evidence No. 8 (Dismissal) and Eul evidence No. 1 (decision) cited in the judgment of the court below, the plaintiff et al. did not have any legal relation to the above non-party 2's claim for consolation money due to an accident, and it cannot be viewed that the plaintiff et al. did not have any other legal relation to the above plaintiff's claim for consolation money under his joint signature with the Minister of Justice.
Accordingly, this case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
This decision is consistent with the opinions of the involved judges.
The presiding judge of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) of the Red Marins (Presiding Justice)