[1] The meaning of "matters other than a dispute, which can be cancelled on the ground of an error in a reconciliation contract under the Civil Act"

[2] The case holding that the revocation of mistake in the agreement is recognized in case where the victim was aware of the victim's unilateral negligence even though the perpetrator's negligence was concurrent in the occurrence of a traffic accident, and the victim agreed to waive all claims for damages by receiving an agreed amount much less than the actual damages

[1] In a case where a settlement contract is concluded under the Civil Act, the parties may cancel it only when there is an error in matters other than the dispute which is the object of the qualification of the parties to the settlement or the settlement. The term "matters other than the dispute which is the object of the settlement" is not the object of the dispute but the matters which are the premise or basis of the dispute, which are scheduled by both parties, and are understood as a fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession.

[2] The case holding that the victim can cancel the settlement contract on the ground of mistake, on the ground that the fact that the accident occurred due to the total negligence of the victim is not subject to concession because both parties dispute, and it is not subject to dispute resolution, in case where the victim's negligence did not occur even though the perpetrator's negligence is concurrent in the traffic accident but only caused by the victim's negligence and only received 7,00,000 won which is much less than the actual amount of damages incurred by the agreement, including the medical expenses, and that the accident occurred due to the total negligence of the victim was not subject to dispute between the parties.

[1] Articles 109 and 733 of the Civil Act / [2] Articles 109 and 733 of the Civil Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da47208 delivered on July 14, 1992 (Gong1992, 2390) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 90Meu22674 delivered on November 9, 1990 (Gong1991, 49) Supreme Court Decision 94Da22453 delivered on December 12, 1995 (Gong196Sang, 350) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 90Da12526 delivered on January 25, 1991 (Gong191, 848)

Plaintiff 1 and three others (Law Firm Seocheon General Law Office, Attorneys Transferred-won et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Lee Hong-soo (Attorney Dong-sung et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Incheon District Court Decision 95Na2272 delivered on October 6, 1995

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Incheon District Court Panel Division.

We examine the Plaintiffs’ grounds of appeal.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below held that the non-party 1 was unable to reach an agreement on the above 0th of December 14, 1993 by driving the bus owned by the defendant around 09:0 and driving the third line on the 28th of Seocheon-si, Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si, with the view to leaving the apartment complex for left convenience, because the non-party 1 was unable to reach an agreement on the above 0th of the above 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 3rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1993rd of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 1st of the 20th of the 2nd of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 2th of the 1st of the 3th of the 1st of the 2.

2. The court below acknowledged that the above reconciliation contract was not concluded by mistake, and that the plaintiff 1 had no record of the above 3rd line immediately after the above settlement contract was concluded by mistake, and that the plaintiff 2 had no record of the above 56% of the working capacity of the plaintiff 1 had no record of the accident at the same time, and that the plaintiff 1 had no record of the above 2nd line of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, such as an emergency opening of 4 months after suffering from injuries, but it had been treated by one year and nine months after the date of the closing of the argument at the court below ( September 15, 1995), but there was a large amount of 50% of the working capacity of the plaintiff 1, who had no record of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the above 1st of the accident at the time of the accident, but had no record of the accident at the time of the above 1st of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the plaintiff 20th of the accident.

Therefore, even though the accident of this case cannot be deemed to have occurred due to the plaintiff 1's unilateral negligence, the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have entered into a settlement agreement of this case by mistake, since the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have caused the accident entirely by the plaintiff's negligence, and the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have received only the amount which is significantly short of the compensation amount for damages suffered by the plaintiff.

However, in the case of the conclusion of a settlement contract under the Civil Act, the parties to the contract may cancel it only if there is an error in matters other than the dispute which is the object of the settlement or qualification of the parties to the contract. The "matters other than the subject matter of the settlement" are the subject matter of the dispute, not the subject matter of the dispute, but the subject matter of the dispute, which is the premise or the basis of the dispute, and is the subject matter understood as the fact that there is no dispute without mutual concession (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da22453, Dec. 12, 1995; 90Da22674, Nov. 9, 190). At the time of the agreement of this case, the plaintiffs agreed that the traffic accident of this case occurred solely due to the negligence of the plaintiff 1, and that the parties to the contract should waive all claims for damages after receiving only KRW 700,000,000,000,0000.

In addition, as seen earlier, if an insurance company’s employee representing the defendant at the time of the settlement agreement of this case emphasizes that the accident of this case was wholly caused by Plaintiff 1’s negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs also acknowledged it and agreed on such premise, even if the accident of this case was caused solely by the negligence of the above plaintiff, the above motive is the premise of the settlement agreement between both parties, and it cannot be readily concluded that such motive was already the premise of the settlement agreement and that such motive was not indicated

Nevertheless, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the cancellation of a settlement contract by mistake, and determined that the plaintiffs cannot cancel the settlement contract of this case based on erroneous facts as to the circumstances leading to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the settlement. Therefore, the court below did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the violation of the rules of evidence, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The ground for appeal pointing this out has merit

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, we reverse the judgment below and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Jin-hun (Presiding Justice)