[1] Interpretation of an agreement between the perpetrator and the victim to pay a certain amount and give up the remainder of the claim regarding tort damages

[2] The case holding that the agreement on the compensation of damages based on the post-performance disability, such as the limitation on exercise at the right-side saves remaining after the surgery on the right-side saves of the traffic accident, shall affect damage caused by the aftermathal disorder of the saves of the saves determined later

[1] When the perpetrator and the victim agree to receive a certain amount of amount and waive the remainder of the claim, the damage cannot be claimed again after the occurrence of the damage. However, it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damage as long as the agreement was caused after the accident, which is the cause of the damage, and it is difficult to predict the extent of the damage. Thus, it is reasonable to view that if the parties anticipated the damage after the occurrence of the damage, it would not have reached a settlement with the agreed amount under the generally accepted social norms if the damage was significant, the intent of the parties would not have renounced their right to claim the damage. Thus, it shall be deemed that the parties can claim the compensation again because the parties would have renounced their right to claim the damage.

[2] The case holding that the agreement on the compensation of damages based on the post-performance disability, such as the limitation on exercise at the right-side saves remaining after the surgery on the right-side saves of a traffic accident, shall affect damage caused by the aftermathal disability of the aftermathal saves.

[1] Articles 109, 733, and 750 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 109, 733, and 750 of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da423 delivered on April 11, 1997 (Gong1997Sang, 1440), Supreme Court Decision 96Da46903 delivered on August 29, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 2851), Supreme Court Decision 99Da7046 delivered on June 22, 199 (Gong1999Ha, 1475), Supreme Court Decision 99Da39418 delivered on January 14, 200 (Gong200Sang, 380)

Dongbu Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Lee Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na12187 delivered on October 8, 1999

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, since the plaintiff did not reach an agreement on the remaining right-hand disability at the time of 196, the court below concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the non-party to compensate for all damages caused by an automobile accident during the operation of the car (vehicle registration number omitted). The defendant, on April 7, 1997, suffered injuries such as a traffic accident by the non-party, and did not reach an agreement on the reduction of the right-hand disability at the time of 10th of April 7, 1997, and did not reach an agreement on the reduction of the medical treatment rate of 10th of October 20, 197, on the ground that the non-party did not have reached an agreement on the reduction of the medical treatment rate of 10th of 1st of 9th of 3rd of 1st of 3rd of 1st of 196, on the ground that the defendant did not have reached an agreement on the reduction of the medical treatment rate of 10th of 2th of 16th of 3th of 3rd.

2. As to tort damages, when the perpetrator and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount of amount and waive the remaining claims, they cannot claim compensation again after the occurrence of damages. However, since the agreement was not long after the occurrence of damages, it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of damages due to the occurrence of the accident, which is the cause of the damage, it is difficult to predict the extent of damages. As such, it is reasonable to view that the parties would not have reached a settlement in terms of social norms if they anticipated the damage after the occurrence of the accident. If the damage was significant, it cannot be deemed that the intent of the parties would have renounced their right to claim compensation for the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da7046, Aug. 29, 199; 9Da7046, Jun. 22, 199; 9Da3939418, Jan. 14, 200).

However, according to the facts established by the court below, the defendant suffered the accident of this case on April 7, 1997, and received hospitalized treatment from the time of the accident to October 20 of the same year, and reached the agreement of this case on December 4, 1997. Meanwhile, according to the evidence employed by the court below, the obstacles to the remaining right-hand part of the ground for appeal to the defendant were the result of the surgery on the part of the ground for the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the case of this case. The defendant, before July 28, 1997, received the operation on the part of the part of the part of the part of the part of the first part of the part of the part of the part of the first part of the part of the first part of the part of the first part of the part of the judgment, and had the part of the part of the part of the

In light of the above circumstances, the agreement in this case cannot be deemed to have been reached in a situation where it is difficult for the Defendant to confirm the scope of damage caused by the accident in this case. Moreover, it cannot be concluded that the damage was not anticipated at the time of the agreement in this case, in light of the fact that the obstacle of the Defendant’s right-hand axis was already done before July 28, 1997, when it was performed on the part of the preferentially left part, and that it was only known by the Defendant after being judged as an obstacle to it again after the agreement in this case, it cannot be deemed to have occurred after the agreement in this case. Furthermore, it cannot be concluded that the obstacle of the right-hand axis was caused by an operation on the part of the preferentially left part before the agreement in this case.

Therefore, inasmuch as there is no evidence to deem that there was a separate, explicit, or implied intent that limits the validity of the agreement with respect to damage caused by the defendant's impairment to the right-hand side of the defendant, the validity of the agreement in this case extends to damage caused by the above disability. Nevertheless, the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim based on the court below's determination that the damage caused by the above disability was an unforeseeable damage at the time of the agreement in this case, which did not affect the validity of the agreement in this case, shall not be deemed to have been erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limitation of validity of the agreement, or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the time of occurrence

3. Therefore, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)