2. The Defendant: (a) on September 27, 2012, the Plaintiff KRW 2,000,000 and its related thereto.

A. The plaintiffs are married couple, and the defendant is the plaintiff A's employer.

B. On September 26, 2012, Plaintiff A prepared a contact work with knee kel kel and kel kel kel keling in order to conduct on-site replacement of the part of the heating room in the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, the Defendant constructed.

However, while the aging pipes installed on the head of the Plaintiff A fall, the Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the pelvise, the pelvise (openness), the pelvise, the pelvise, the pelvise, etc., due to the shock of the head of the Plaintiff A.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Plaintiff

A received 35,026,030 won in total, including 21,084,720 won in temporary layoff benefits for industrial accidents, 9,788,200 won in medical care benefits, and 4,153,110 won in disability benefits, due to the instant accident.

On March 3, 2015, Plaintiff A received the agreement amount of KRW 5,240,00 from the Defendant with respect to the instant accident, and agreed that the receipt of the agreement between the Defendant and the said money would have reached an agreement with the same effect as that of the judicial settlement, and would not claim any additional amount in addition to the above amount, and would not impose any civil or criminal liability on the Defendant in the future.

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). 【The ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As to the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defense prior to the merits (the lost profit, king medical expenses, consolation money), the defendant asserts that the plaintiffs' claim for damages against the defense prior to the merits violates the agreement of this case (the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case) and is unlawful, barring such circumstances, only in the case where significant and new damages have occurred that could not have been predicted at the time of the agreement of this case.

The interpretation of a juristic act is clearly the objective meaning which the parties have given to the act of indication.