A. Interpretation of an agreement that the victim agrees to pay a certain amount of damages for tort and waive the remainder of the claim

(b) The case holding that the agreement on compensation for damages caused by medical malpractice is valid as waiver of the remaining right to claim damages;

A. As to damages caused by tort, when the perpetrator and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount of amount and to waive the remaining claims, the damages cannot be claimed again after the occurrence of the above amount of damages. However, it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of damages due to the lapse of time after the accident, which is the cause of the damages. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the damage was unexpected in light of the circumstances at the time of the agreement, and it is reasonable to view that if the parties anticipated the damage after delay, they would not have reached a settlement with the agreed amount under the generally accepted social norms, if the damage was serious, the intent of the parties would not be deemed to have waived their right to claim the damages, and thus, it shall be deemed that the parties

(b) The case holding that the agreement on compensation for damages caused by medical malpractice is valid as waiver of the remaining right to claim damages;

Article 763 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu74 delivered on April 27, 1988 (Gong1988,900) (Gong1988, 900) 89Meu986 delivered on July 25, 1989 (Gong1989, 1295)

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee

Defendant 1 and one other, Counsel for the defendant-appellee and two others

Daegu High Court Decision 90Na470 delivered on October 25, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, even if the plaintiffs 1 were unable to reach an agreement on the above 198.2.45 on the above 1stmath of 197, and the plaintiffs were sent birth to the above 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 5th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 1st of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 1st of 3th of 1st of 1st of 2.

2. As to damages caused by tort, when the perpetrator and the victim agree to receive a certain amount of amount and to waive the remaining claims, the damages cannot be claimed again after the occurrence of the above amount of damages. However, as long as the agreement was caused after the accident, which is the cause of the damages, it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damages. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the damages incurred after the occurrence of the damages would not have been settled under the generally accepted social norms if the parties anticipated the damage after the occurrence of the damages. As such, if the damages were to be significant, the intent of the parties would not be deemed to have waived their right to claim the damages, and thus, it shall be deemed that the parties can again claim the damages.

In light of the above facts established by the court below, the plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff 1's damage from the aftermath surgery was caused by the aftermath surgery on the ground of the aftermath surgery. Other losses caused by the aftermath surgery on the ground of the aftermathy surgery are legally rejected by the court below. The plaintiffs' assertion that the plaintiff 1 was not completely cured on the ground of the aftermathy surgery on the ground that the agreement was reached at the time of agreement and the symptoms of the plaintiff 1 after the aftermathy surgery was conducted on the ground of the above determination of the court below. The agreement amount was 6,00,000 won, and the plaintiff 1 was 3,968,120 won in the aftermathy surgery was discharged from the aftermathy surgery on the ground of the records, and that the treatment expenses of the above after the aftermathy surgery were 1,571,100 won on the aftermathy surgery on the ground of the circumstances at the time of the above mathy operation on the ground of social norms.

3. Therefore, all appeals are 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 judges.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)