(a) Mistakes on matters other than disputes which are the object of compromise and cancellation of compromise contract;

(b) Where it is found that a private person is irrelevant to the treatment act after the patient is aware of the fact that he/she died of medical malpractice and a compromise between the doctor and his/her bereaved family members is reached (affirmative)

(a) Although a compromise contract under the Civil Act cannot be cancelled on the ground of mistake, it does not apply where there is an error in matters other than those which are the object of the compromise party's qualification or settlement, it means matters other than the object of the compromise, which are not the object of the dispute, and are scheduled by both parties as the premise or the basis of the matters which are the object of the dispute, and thus becomes understood as the fact that there is no dispute

B. In a case where the patient was aware that the patient died as a medical malpractice and the patient’s bereaved family member had paid a certain amount of damages and the bereaved family member agreed not to be held liable for civil or criminal liability, but the result of the autopsy is found to be unrelated to the treatment act by the private person, the above private person’s mistake in the private person is not related to the amount of damages which is the object of reconciliation, the issues of civil or criminal cases, but is not subject to dispute, and the above settlement contract may be revoked on the ground that it is a mistake on the premise or the basis that there is no matter of mutual concession.

Article 733 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15413 Decided August 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1343)

[Defendant-Appellant] Jin Park Gyeong-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant

For e-mail

Seoul High Court Decision 90Na973 delivered on June 29, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. According to the decision of the court below, at around 00: 17, the plaintiff, a medical specialist, was at the hospital run by him, after treating the body body of the body of the defendant's mother, the plaintiff's mother at around 00: 12 million won, in which the plaintiff administered the patient's mother, he was in charge of administering 3/1,00 of amplin amplin clin clin clin clin clin clin clin clin clin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin lin l in lin and lin lin lin lin lin lin l in l. l. l. l. l. l.

2. Although a settlement contract cannot be cancelled on the ground of mistake under the Civil Act, it does not apply where there is an error in matters other than a dispute which is the object of the settlement, which is the object of the settlement shall not be the object of the dispute, and the matters other than a dispute which is the object of the settlement shall not be the object of the dispute, which are scheduled by both parties on the premise or the basis of the matters which are the object of the dispute, and thus, it shall be understood as a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession. Therefore, an error in the private person of the network delivery room is not the object of the settlement in this case, but the amount of compensation which is the object of the settlement in this case, the issue of civil and criminal cases, and it is not the object of the dispute, but the object of the dispute is not the object of the settlement in this case, and it is a mistake on the premise or the basis of mutual concession,

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)