The case holding that a settlement contract (agreement) may be cancelled on the ground of mistake where the victim is aware of unilateral negligence of the victim even though there is competition between the perpetrator's negligence in the occurrence of an accident and the perpetrator's user of the accident is the person who caused the accident solely by negligence of the victim and agreed to waive all rights to claim compensation for damages on the ground of mistake where the parties to the settlement contract can cancel due to mistake.

A. As to a settlement contract under the Civil Act, a party may not cancel it on the ground of mistake, but cancel it only when there is an error in matters other than those which are the object of the settlement (Article 733 of the Civil Act). The term “matters other than those which are the object of the settlement” above means matters which are not the object of the dispute but the premise or basis of the dispute, which are the object of the dispute, and which are scheduled by both parties, and which are understood as facts

B. The case holding that the above agreement, i.e., a compromise agreement, can be cancelled on the ground of mistake, in case where the victim's negligence is concurrent with the victim's negligence, even though the victim's negligence was discovered in the above accident, and the victim's negligence was aware of the victim's unilateral negligence and agreed to give up all claims for damages, where the victim agreed to give up all claims for damages including the agreement amounting to 2,50,000 won, and the above accident occurred due to the victim's negligence.

Article 733 of the Civil Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 88Meu15413 decided Aug. 8, 1989 (Gong1989, 1343) (Gong1989, 1343) 90Meu2674 decided Nov. 9, 1990 (Gong191, 49)

Plaintiff 1 and 6 others, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Skjin Passenger Co., Ltd., Attorney Kim Yong-han, Counsel for the defendant

Busan High Court Decision 91Na6481 delivered on November 14, 1991

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. In light of the facts acknowledged by the court below as to the developments leading up to the agreement of this case and the situation before and after, we affirm the judgment below rejecting the plaintiffs' assertion that the agreement of this case was an invalid juristic act of which fairness has been significantly lost due to rashness, experience, and pathy, and there is no error of law of misconception of facts against the rules of evidence and incomplete deliberation, such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to argue

2. As to a settlement contract under the Civil Act, a party may cancel the contract only when there is an error in matters other than a dispute which is the object of the qualification of the parties to the settlement or the settlement (Article 733 of the Civil Act). Matters other than those which are the object of the settlement above are not the object of the dispute, but those which are the premise or basis of the dispute and are scheduled by both parties to the dispute, and which are understood as a fact that there is no dispute

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, the plaintiffs agreed that the accident of this case occurred solely by the negligence of the plaintiff 1, the victim, and that the plaintiff 1 gave up all claims for damages. Thus, the fact that the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff 1 was not the object of concession due to the lack of dispute between both parties. It constitutes a matter which is not the object of settlement but the premise of the dispute. Thus, if the defendant's negligence is concurrent in the accident of this case, even though the accident of this case occurred by the defendant's unilateral negligence, if the plaintiffs agreed that the accident of this case occurred solely by the negligence of the plaintiff 1, the victim, and that the agreement of this case was cancelled on the ground of mistake, i.e., the settlement contract.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiffs’ petition for revocation of compromise due to the Plaintiffs’ mistake on the grounds that it is evident that the Plaintiff’s assertion of the subject matter of compromise concerns the existence of liability for damages, which is the main subject matter of compromise, and it cannot be said that it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the grounds of revocation

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the court below, it is rejected by the court below that the plaintiffs cannot be deemed to have reached the above agreement on the petition for cancellation of compromise due to mistake in the causes of the accident of this case and the existence of liability for damages. In light of the records, the court below's determination is acceptable and there is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit, and therefore, the decision of the court below which rejected the plaintiffs' assertion is

In addition, according to the records, it is recognized that Plaintiff 1 suffered an injury, such as plehion, pressure pressure, lower half-yearly scarke, and cerebral spel, etc., which require medical treatment for more than six months at the time of the accident, and that Plaintiff 1 was in the degree of getting back to IMBs by making up for it, and there is no material to deem that there was aggravation of symptoms unexpected after the agreement, so it is difficult to deem that the degree of damage or future disability was unforeseeable at the time of the agreement, and therefore, the judgment of the court below as to this point is without merit and there is no error of law such as the theory of lawsuit. This point is without merit.

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 Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)