Cases that violate the rules of evidence and affect the judgment.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 (Written Agreement, Receipt), the plaintiffs received 340,000 won as compensation from the defendant as well as compensation for damages and do not file all civil and criminal lawsuits, and it is against the rules of evidence to reject the defendant's defense on the ground that the defendant's defense was made in order to seek the driver's license, who is the perpetrator of the above documentary evidence by the testimony of Byung, even though it is not reasonable for the plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit in consideration of the deceased's age, occupation, degree of negligence, etc., and the above amount received as a lump sum without the plaintiffs' lawsuit, even though it is not sufficient for the plaintiffs to bring a lawsuit, it is against the rules of evidence.

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff 1 and three others

Sungnam Transportation Corporation

Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1391 delivered on June 19, 1970, Seoul High Court Decision 69Na1391 delivered on June 19, 1970

The part of the original judgment against the defendant is reversed, and the case on this part is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The court below held that the non-party 1, who was the inheritee of the plaintiffs, died of his car owned by the defendant was due to the tort committed by the non-party 2, who was an employee of the defendant, and therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the negligence during the performance of his duties. The defendant, as alleged in the defendant, determined the profit from the loss as 770,000 won by taking account of the deceased's negligence, paid 34 won only to the plaintiffs after the accident, and rejected the defense that the defendant agreed that the plaintiffs would not make any further claim. In light of Eul evidence 1-1, 2, 3 (Agreement, Receipt) and the testimony of non-party 3, the plaintiff 1 received 340,000 won from the defendant on behalf of the plaintiffs after the accident, and received 340,000 won from the defendant on behalf of the defendant after the accident, and it was also made in order to recover the loss of the plaintiff's loss due to the two ties.

However, according to the evidence No. 1, No. 1-2, and No. 3 of the defendant No. 1-3, the plaintiffs received 340,000 won as compensation from the defendant as well as compensation for damages and did not file all civil and criminal lawsuits. It is true to view the traffic accident completely in line with the intent of the parties, and it does not necessarily mean that the above amount which the plaintiffs received as a lump sum without the plaintiffs' lawsuit is equivalent to the total amount of damages if considering the deceased's age, occupation, degree of negligence, etc., the court below rejected some of the above judgment of the court below because it was made by the victims in order to demand the driver's license, which is the perpetrator by the testimony of the non-party No. 3, and the above decision has a violation of the rules of evidence, which affected the judgment, and thus, the part against the defendant shall be reversed.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng