(a) Cancellation of a compromise contract on the grounds of an error in matters other than those which are the object of compromise;

(b) The case holding that there is an error on the premise or the basis of a compromise;

(a) A compromise under the Civil Act may not be cancelled on the ground of mistake, but if there is an error in the matters understood as a fact that is not the subject of the dispute but the subject of the dispute, i.e., the premise or basis of the dispute, and is scheduled by both parties to the dispute, and is not the subject of mutual concession, the contract may be cancelled

B. If, on the premise that the patient died from medical malpractice and the doctor agreed to pay the compensation for damages to his/her bereaved family members, if the private person is found to have no connection with the medical treatment, the above agreement is a compromise made by mistake on the private person of the deceased, not on the purpose, and can be revoked on the ground of mistake

Articles 733 and 109 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 15413 (Gong1989, 1343) (Gong1989, 1343) (Gong1989, 1456) (Law No. 1989, 1456) and 1990.11.9

For e-mail

Hong Government Law Firm Gyeong-ju, Attorney Yoon Young-young

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na12112 delivered on September 26, 1990

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The facts duly determined by the court below are as follows. In other words, at around 17:00 on February 20, 1989, the non-party 10 days after the non-party 1 opened as a medical specialist in charge of the operation of the non-party 1, who is the plaintiff's mother, the non-party 17:00 on February 20, 1989, the non-party 17:0 on the part of the non-party 1, who was under the non-party 1, who was under the non-party 2's name of the above 10,000 won on behalf of the non-party 1, who was under the non-party 7's name of the above 10,000 won on behalf of the non-party 1, who was under the non-party 2's name of the above 1,000 won on behalf of the non-party 1, who was under the non-party 2, who was under the non-party 2's name of the above 1.

The above agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff is a settlement under the Civil Act. Although it cannot be cancelled on the ground of mistake in the settlement under the Civil Act, it is estimated by both parties other than the dispute which is the object of the settlement, i.e., matters which are the premise or foundation of the dispute, which are not the object of the dispute, and it is possible to cancel it if there is any error in the matters understood as the fact that there is no dispute. The above agreement is not the object of the settlement, but it is due to mistake in the private person of the above deceased, and it is not the object of the settlement, so it is legally cancelled by the notice of cancellation of the above bill. Therefore, the payment obligation of the promissorysory note issued for its payment is also extinguished. Further, the reason for the issue of the promissorysory note cannot be asserted against the plaintiff unless the holder of the promissorysory note delivered for its payment is bad faith. However, as seen above, the above agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on behalf of the defendant and the defendant was issued at the same time and the delivery of the promissory note to the plaintiff.

Therefore, the appeal is 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.

Justices Park Yong-dong (Presiding Justice)