Does plaintiff have to prove that he understood and agreed to the terms of a settlement?

Despite plaintiff's current claim, after the recitation of settlement terms he specifically stated he understood and agreed with them. And the judge "flat-out" rejected plaintiff's argument he did not understand, characterizing it as "not true." "In ruling on a motion to enter judgment the trial court acts as the trier of fact, determining whether the parties entered into a valid and binding settlement. [Citation.]" (Terry v. Conlan, supra, 131 Cal.App.4th at p. 1454.) The court determined here that plaintiff understood and agreed to the terms, noting they were quite favorable to him. That the court never asked plaintiff his understanding of the settlement terms does not negate the finding he comprehended them.