손해배상(기)
1. The Defendants: (a) each of the Plaintiffs A and B, KRW 8,094,849; and (b) KRW 97,475,136; and (c) as to the Plaintiff C, February 26, 2013.
1. On March 7, 2013, the Defendants, as the representatives of the deceased’s bereaved families after the network H (hereinafter “the deceased”), paid KRW 185,00,00,00 to the above bereaved families, including the insurance money as compensation for the above accident between the deceased’s death and the J, as seen below. If the deceased’s spouse in North Korea enters Korea and files a civil or criminal lawsuit against the Defendants, the Defendants shall prepare a written agreement to confirm that the above bereaved families will be legally responsible, and the letter of apology was completed. As such, the above agreement includes a non-contentious special clause with the purport that the above bereaved families will not file a lawsuit against the Defendants in connection with the above accident. Thus, the lawsuit of this case filed by the Plaintiffs is invalid, even if the above agreement was not made by the Plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the deceased, and even if no validity exists, the lawsuit of this case shall be deemed unlawful, and thus, the above agreement shall be deemed null and void.
According to the evidence No. 1, K, which was the leader of Defendant G at the time, has reached an agreement with the Defendant, as alleged by the Defendant, on March 7, 2013, with D, the decedent and the deceased, I, and J, who were the leader of Defendant G.
However, there is no evidence to prove that D, I, and J had the authority to legally conclude such an agreement on behalf of the plaintiffs at the time, and according to the evidence No. 1, D is recognized as the fact that D was appointed as the administrator of the plaintiffs on May 7, 2013, but it is difficult to view that D ratified the above agreement on behalf of the plaintiffs.
This agreement or ratification is beyond the scope of preservation or use or improvement of property.