[손해배상(산)청구사건][하집1987(4),466]
An action brought in violation of a non-committee agreement and dismissed as there is no benefit of protection of rights.
If the Plaintiff, as his major, was employed by the Nonparty, and the Nonparty was contracted to him by the Defendant, was the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the Nonparty, and the industrial accident insurance relationship was intentionally handled by the Defendant, and the Nonparty, the employer, received a monetary amount of KRW 3,00,000 from the Defendant company, and agreed not to file any civil or criminal complaint against the Defendant and the Nonparty, then the agreement was reached with the Defendant and the Nonparty not to file any civil or criminal lawsuit, that would have no interest in the protection of rights.
Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act
Supreme Court Decision 68Da1665 delivered on November 5, 1968, 68Da1665 decided Nov. 5, 1968; Supreme Court Decision 68Da1665 Decided Nov. 5, 1968 (Civil Procedure Act 34), 68Da1665 decided Nov. 5, 1968.
Plaintiff 1 and five others
Korea General Machinery Corporation
The plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is dismissed.
Litigation costs are assessed against the plaintiffs.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 34,842,626 won, 2,000 won, 3, 4, 5, and 6 each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 3, 500,000 won, 500 won per annum from October 25, 1985 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 5 percent per annum from the next day to the full payment date.
The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.
At around 14:00 on October 25, 1985, the plaintiffs were employed by the plaintiff 1 to the non-party 1, and the non-party 1 was contracted by the defendant to install electric structures for private use with the number of 1 factory line 2 and 7 primary machinery removal work, and upon the non-party 2's work instruction, the above plaintiffs, 5 meters above, 5 meters above 5 meters above the ground 5 meters above the 5th ethyl cable duct, 50 202 3 with thickness and 1 300 m2 with 60 m20 m2 and 300 m20 m2. The plaintiffs asserted that the non-party 1 suffered damages from the non-party 3's occupational negligence without the duty of care of the non-party 2 as the non-party 3's occupational negligence and without the duty of care of the non-party 2 as the non-party 3's occupational negligence. The plaintiffs asserted that the non-party 2 suffered damages from the above 12's occupational negligence.
However, as to the defendant's assertion that the lawsuit of this case was brought in violation of the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's assertion that the establishment of the notarial portion was not disputed, and eventually, the plaintiff 1's evidence No. 1's authenticity of the document was acknowledged as a whole (written note) and (the above plaintiff 1's testimony that the defendant would be forced to release the defendant if he did not affix his seal to the above written statement, although the defendant did not cause the industrial accident treatment and did not pay the hospital treatment expenses. Thus, the above plaintiff 1's testimony of the witness adjustment system, the Yellow Domine's partial testimony, the result of the plaintiff 1's personal examination, the plaintiff 1's non-party 1's non-party 9's testimony, and the above non-party 1's testimony of the above 9's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 1's testimony and the defendant 1's non-party 1's non-party 3's testimony.
According to the above facts of recognition, this agreement entered into between the plaintiff 1 and the defendant company includes not only the damages of the plaintiff 1 but also the rest of the plaintiffs' claim for consolation money in their family relations. The purport of this agreement is to conclude that the special agreement was made not to institute a lawsuit against all claims of the plaintiffs.
Accordingly, the above agreement with the defendant 1 was rejected by the defendant 1 at that time, and the plaintiff 1 did not have the ability to bear hospital expenses. Accordingly, the above agreement was null and void as a juristic act which has considerably lost fairness. As to whether the plaintiff was in an industrial accident at the time of the above agreement, the defendant 1 and the defendant 2 were present at the above 7th office for the above 10th office for the above 7th office for the above 7th office for treatment of industrial accidents, and the defendant 1 did not have any other evidence to acknowledge the above agreement. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were present at the above 10th office for the above 7th office for the above 1st office for treatment of industrial accident and the above 1st office for the above 7th office for treatment of industrial accident, and the plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2 were present at the above 9th office for the above 1st office for treatment of industrial accident and the defendant 1 were present at the above 7th office for the above 1st office for treatment of industrial accident. The plaintiff 1 and the defendant 2.
Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it was filed in violation of the non-assignment agreement of this case, and there is no benefit in the protection of their rights. Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs who have lost them.
Judges Ora Jin-Jon (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-chul