The case holding that there was an error of misunderstanding the evidence of the disposal document

If a disposal document is deemed to be genuine and correct, the existence of a juristic act in its content should be recognized unless there is clear and acceptable ground to deny its content. Thus, if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff recognized the remaining fact of physical disability due to an accident that occurred to the Defendant Company in accordance with the written agreement under subparagraph 2 (a), which is a disposal document, and that the Plaintiff paid damages and consolation money to the Defendant Company, and agreed upon the Defendant Company that it would not be able to file a civil or criminal lawsuit or claim against the injured party even if the injury and disease is aggravated after the agreement was reached and the injury and injury occurred or death occurred, it shall be deemed that the agreement includes the purport that the Plaintiff would waive its right to claim damages due to a testamentary gift, such as the time of original adjudication after the agreement, even if the Plaintiff becomes unable to engage in a mining damage due to such subsequent thereto, and it shall not be readily concluded that the agreement was due to unexpected gross mistake

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu413 Decided December 14, 1982, Supreme Court Decision 84Meu571 Decided July 10, 1984

Plaintiff 1 and 3 others, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Tae Young Mining Co., Ltd., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellee and Kim Jong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 83Na917 delivered on October 7, 1983

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since Plaintiff 1, who had been working as a late-time mining center located in Thai-dong, Tae Young-dong, without any consent of the above parties, gave up 10 meters from the entrance of the above new wall mining center, and then spread 160 meters from the end of the prevention area into which 1600 meters wide, the court below acknowledged that Plaintiff 1 and 2 did not suffer from injury such as the 3rd ridge, etc. due to 10 kilograms away from 10 kilograms at the same time after receiving the above 8th agreement on the compensation for damages, and thus, it was impossible to accept the above 1,120,00 won from the defendant company and to accept the above 1,600 won in the form of compensation for damages, and thus, it is possible to conclude the above 21,000 won in the form of an industrial accident with no consent of the court below for re-employment as a result of the above 1,000 square meters agreement.

2. However, as long as the contents of the disposition document are recognized as genuine and acceptable, the existence of a juristic act must be recognized unless there is any clear and acceptable ground (see Supreme Court Decision 84Meu571, Jul. 10, 1984). According to the above Eul evidence No. 2, the plaintiff 1 and 2 recognized the remaining facts of physical disability due to the above accident with the defendant company on May 23, 1981, and received damages and consolation money from the defendant company and received damages 1,120,00 won from the defendant company and the defendant company's office in Sungsung District Office, and it can be recognized that the plaintiff 1 did not have reached an agreement on the above fact that it would not have reached a claim for damages after the above agreement, and it can be viewed that the court below did not have reached an agreement on the plaintiff 1 as evidence for the reason that it would not have been able to be found that the plaintiff 1 would not have reached an agreement on the above fact that it would have been 1,000 won after the above agreement.

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the part of the judgment below against the defendant and remand this part of the case to the Seoul High Court. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)