(a) Cancellation of a compromise contract on the grounds of mistake;

(b) Where it is deemed that there is an error on the premise or the basis of the compromise;

(c) The validity of interim retirement disposition, in case where a worker submits formal resignation and continues to serve after immediate resignation;

(d) Validity of an amendment to rules of employment disadvantageous to workers as to retirement allowances;

A. Reconciliation is a contract which takes effect when the parties agreed to terminate a dispute by mutual concessions, and even if there is an error in such declaration of intent, if it is related to the matters decided by mutual concession itself as the subject matter of dispute, it may not be cancelled by mistake. On the other hand, in a case where it is intended by both parties on the premise or basis of the subject matter of dispute, and it is not the subject matter of mutual concession, and is related to matters other than the subject matter of dispute under the proviso of Article 733 of the Civil Act, if it is related to matters which are not the subject matter of mutual concession, and there is no doubt, it may be cancelled by mistake, barring special circumstances.

(b) The degree of difference between the matters determined in a settlement agreement and the truth significantly exceeds the scope of the allegations of the parties, and if it is clearly recognized that the parties did not have separate questions as to the portion beyond the scope of the allegations and thus did not have any content of mutual concession, it constitutes a case where there is an error as to matters exceeding the scope of the allegations, which is the premise or foundation of the settlement.

C. In a case where a worker submitted a resignation in accordance with the company’s management policy and received a resignation by the company and immediately re-employed after being dismissed, and where the worker continues to work without the substantial suspension of employment relations over the period after the retirement, the effect of the submission of the above private employee and the disposal of retirement shall not accrue.

D. An employer’s amendment of the rules of employment to a disadvantage to workers than that of the existing rules of employment constitutes an unfavorable amendment to the rules of employment that is unreasonable, and such amendment to the rules of employment cannot be effective unless there is consent by the method of collective decision-making of collective decision-making of the employee group to which the existing rules of employment were applied.

A.B. Article 733 of the Civil Act: Article 109 of the Civil Act; Article 28(d) of the Labor Standards Act; Article 95 of the Labor Standards Act

Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2578 Decided May 10, 1988, Supreme Court Decision 101Da101 Decided December 14, 1961, and 64Da500 Decided September 15, 1964, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2578 Decided May 10, 198

Plaintiff-Appellee et al., Counsel for defendant-appellee

Gangnam Industrial Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee and one other

Seoul High Court Decision 86Na3730 delivered on April 27, 1988

The original judgment is reversed and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

A compromise is a contract which takes effect when the parties agree to terminate a dispute by mutual concession (Article 731 of the Civil Act). Thus, even if there is an error in the declaration of intention of a compromise contract, if it relates to the matters determined by mutual concession itself as an object of dispute (Article 732 and the main text of Article 733 of the Civil Act). On the other hand, if it is related to the matters understood as a fact other than a dispute which is the object of mutual concession and is not an object of dispute but is not an object of dispute between the parties, and there is no doubt of dispute, it is obvious that the parties may cancel the said compromise contract on the ground of mistake (Article 732 and the main sentence of Article 733 of the Civil Act).

However, it is an issue of interpreting the intention to decide by examining the whole process of the act in order to determine what is the matters determined by mutual concession and what is the basis of the actual settlement contract, and what is the subject of mutual concession and what is the basis of the premise or the basis of the settlement. Therefore, in particular, the degree of difference between the matters determined in the settlement contract and the truth is considerably in excess of the scope of the parties' arguments, as to the portion exceeding the scope of the parties' arguments, it shall not be considered as the subject of dispute because the parties did not have a separate question as to the part beyond the scope of their arguments, and therefore, if it is clearly recognized that there is no matter as the contents of mutual concession, there is an error as to the matters exceeding the scope of the parties' arguments, it shall be deemed that there is an error in the premise or the basis of the settlement. Therefore, it shall be reasonable interpretation that the parties can dispute

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of 50,00,000 won of the total amount of the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance, etc. on October 15, 1982, since the Defendant, based on the evidence adopted, became a member of the Defendant company who works for the Defendant company on September 16, 196, and re-enters the Plaintiff’s injury to the head of the Defendant company on December 1, 1972, and again retired on January 15, 1982, as well as re-entered the same amount of the retirement allowance to the Defendant company on October 2, 1984, the lower court did not have any special circumstance to recognize the difference between the Plaintiff’s retirement allowance and the amount of the said allowances agreed upon by the Defendant company and the amount of the said allowances agreed upon by the Defendant’s 30,000,000 won and the amount of the said allowances agreed upon by the Defendant’s 17,000,0000 won.

However, the court below found that the plaintiff filed a petition against the defendant with the Ministry of Labor in the former part of fact-finding in the original judgment, and received 1,040,763 won, including additional retirement allowances, from the defendant, and prepared a written withdrawal of the petition, and delivered it to the head of the office of the Taecheon District Office in the Ministry of Labor. However, there is no fact-finding as to whether the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the amount of the remaining retirement allowances and allowances, but there is no agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the amount of the retirement allowances and allowances. However, in the latter part of the reasoning of the original judgment, the court below held that if the plaintiff and the defendant agreed on the amount of the retirement allowances and allowances and withdrawn the petition, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff still agreed on the waiver of the liability

In addition, even if it can be acknowledged that an agreement was reached between the defendant and the above defendant on the amount of retirement allowances as stated in the original judgment, the issue in this case is not the agreement or settlement itself, but it has been the subject of reconciliation. If the plaintiff's assertion, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 14, and Eul evidence 16 and the testimony of the labor inspector who investigated the above appeal, it is treated as an interim retirement allowance twice as shown in the original judgment. Meanwhile, the defendant abolished the provision on retirement allowance payment under the remaining rate of 0 days since December 29, 1972, and revised the provision on retirement allowance payment under the premise that the plaintiff was not entitled to the above revised retirement allowance payment under the premise that the plaintiff was not entitled to the above revised retirement allowance payment under the condition that the plaintiff was not entitled to the above revised retirement allowance payment under the condition that the plaintiff was not entitled to the above revised retirement allowance payment under the condition that the plaintiff was not entitled to the retirement allowance payment under the revised retirement allowance payment under the condition that the plaintiff would not have been entitled to the above revised under the condition of 10 days.

However, in a case where a worker submitted a resignation in accordance with the company's management policy and received a new resolution of resignation, and the worker continues to work without any interruption of actual labor relations after the worker's retirement, the effect of the submission of the above company's employees and the disposal of retirement allowances is not generated. Moreover, an employer's unfavorable alteration of the provisions concerning retirement allowances which constitute the working conditions of the rules of employment constitutes an unfavorable alteration of the rules of employment without rationality, and such unfavorable alteration of the rules of employment cannot be effective without consent by the collective decision method of the worker group to which the existing rules of employment were applied (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu2578, May 10, 198). Thus, if it is determined that the above adjustment of the rules on the interim retirement or the payment of retirement allowances as stated in the plaintiff's note that it would be null and void, the number of days of the plaintiff's retirement allowances would be 1410,000 won or more based on the previous rules on the payment of retirement allowances (Evidence No. 163, etc. 19847).7).

Therefore, the court below should have carefully examined whether the above interim retirement and retirement allowance payment provision against the plaintiff is valid, and the reasons why the plaintiff received the money from the defendant at the time of the court below and withdrawn the petition of this case, etc., and should have carefully examined whether the plaintiff and the defendant reached an agreement or reached an agreement on the acceptance of the remaining debts such as retirement allowances, etc., and if so, what is the matters determined by the settlement agreement should be decided by the settlement agreement. However, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim simply on the premise that the plaintiff had reached an agreement on the whole of the remaining debts such as retirement allowances, etc. by withdrawing the petition filed with the Ministry of Labor after receiving some money from the defendant and withdrawing the petition filed with the Ministry of Labor. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the relationship between the settlement and mistake, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and this constitutes a ground for reversal of Article 12 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which points out this point.

Therefore, the original judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court, which is the original judgment, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)