Law Firm Gyeong, Attorney Kang Chang-chul, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Law Firm Vindication, Attorney Shin Young-chul, and Park Young-gu, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On May 24, 2014, at around 19:09, C driven a Drocketing vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and passed through through through the YY via the HY on the road from the road to the ethic surface of the road to the ethic surface from the road to the ethic surface, C shocked the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “the instant traffic accident”) who was crossing the said road from the right side of the direction as follows:

A person shall be appointed.

B. The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cutting the pelvis at the bottom of the pelvis and pelvis, cutting the pelvis, cutting the body pelvis, and cutting the body pelvis, due to the instant accident, and received hospitalized treatment from May 24, 2014 to September 30, 2014.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the defendant vehicle.

D. On February 26, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) drafted a written agreement stating the following amount from the Defendant to receive the damages from the Defendant as the compensation for damages; (b) provided that all rights (including all rights under the law regarding joint tort) have been waived; and (c) promised not to file a civil or criminal lawsuit or objection for any reason; and (d) signed this agreement as evidence of the later date; (b) signed this agreement stating the word “the received amount: 4,300,000,” and “the content of the agreement (hereinafter referred to as “instant agreement”)” (hereinafter referred to as “the agreement”) stating that “the consolation money and other expenses incurred in relation to the compensation for damages in the future”; and (c) received KRW 4,300,000 from the Defendant around March 2, 2015.

E. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was recognized as an occupational accident under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act with respect to the instant accident, was paid KRW 9,880,880,880 for temporary layoff benefits, disability benefits 15,368,560 for the instant accident from the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (2.4.11,384,120, April 12, 2015), and KRW 3,984,440 for medical care benefits, 7,076,530 for medical care benefits.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry in Gap's 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 10, 11, Eul's 1, 2, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The parties' assertion

1) The defendant's assertion

The lawsuit of this case is unlawful because it is against the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case") on the content of the written agreement of this case, and there is no benefit of protection of rights.

2) The plaintiff's assertion

The instant agreement is an unfair legal act committed by the Plaintiff’s old-age or inexperience, and thus null and void pursuant to Article 104 of the Civil Act, or the agreement of this case was reached only to the part of the damages incurred to the Plaintiff. Since the agreement of this case was found late after the fact that there was an abnormal scarshion in January 2016 after the agreement of this case, the Korea Labor Welfare Corporation also found the disability grade from Grade 11 to Grade 10, resulting in new damages, such as additional payment of disability benefits on April 22, 2016, etc.

B. Determination

1) In regard to tort damages, when the perpetrator and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount of amount and to waive the remainder of the claim, they cannot claim damages again, but the agreement was made in a situation where it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of damages, and it is impossible to expect in light of the circumstances at the time of agreement. As such, it is reasonable to deem that the agreement would not have reached a settlement in light of social norms if the parties anticipated the subsequent damage, it cannot be deemed that the parties would have renounced their right to claim damages, and thus, the parties’ intent may again claim damages again (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da9496, Sept. 4, 201).

2) In light of the following circumstances revealed by the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 14, it seems that at the time of the agreement in this case, the plaintiff could have been able to have been able to anticipate the damage caused by the scruptive disorder.

① The instant accident occurred on May 24, 2014.

② On May 27, 2014, the Plaintiff applied for medical care benefits and temporary layoff benefits to the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service.

③ On May 30, 2014, the industrial accident compensation insurance opinion that the Plaintiff was issued from the Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital is written as follows: (a) the name of the injury and disease in detail is written as “the aggregate of the body body of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body; (b) the aggregate of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part

④ On June 11, 2014, the Plaintiff’s medical certificate issued by the Chungcheongnamnam University Hospital also stipulates that “satisfying” is stipulated in the medical certificate.

⑤ According to each disability benefit statement of the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service (No. 13 and 14 evidence), the name of injury and disease was all the same as the body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part, the upper body part of the right-hand part of the upper body part of the upper body part, the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part, the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part of the upper body part, the upper body part of the upper body part

3) Even if an additional loss (e.g., a failure to predict at the time of the instant agreement on household affairs) was incurred, the loss claimed by the Plaintiff was fully compensated as follows. However, it is reasonable to view that if the Plaintiff had anticipated the subsequent loss, it would have failed to compromise the amount of KRW 4,300,000, which is the amount of the instant agreement in light of social norms, would not have been significant to deem that the subsequent loss would have been incurred.

(a) lost income 1: 39,073,790 won;

(1) Personal information: The term "basic matters" in the attached Form for calculation of damages shall be as stated.

② At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff received benefits for short of the urban daily wage at the time of the instant accident, and thus, at least as an ordinary part during the 22th day of November 15, 2024, the amount equivalent to the urban daily wage, which the Plaintiff seeks, shall be deemed to have been able to obtain as income.

(3) The residual disability and rate of loss of labor ability.

Sheal disability

○ Part 1 of the left-hand class 1: 4%, permanent disability [Attachment-A-B-1]

○ The restriction on exercise of the front part and the water supply pipe: 13%, permanent disability (applicable mutatis mutandis to paragraph 3-F-1 of the Mabrid Disability Assessment Table Ⅲ-1)

○ Overlapping disability rate: 16.48%

(C) Loss rate of labor capacity

From May 24, 2014 to September 30, 2014 (Hospitalization period): 100%

From October 1, 2014 to January 15, 2015, the 16.48% of the duplicate disability rate: Provided, That the aggregate of the earnings during the period recognized in the above paragraph (1) of the Korean War is KRW 8,850,32 as shown in the following work income calculation table, and the Plaintiff has already received KRW 9,880,880,880 of temporary layoff benefits in excess of the above amount from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service, and thus, the claim for the lost income during the above period is rejected.

【Real Income】

A person shall be appointed.

B. From January 16, 2015 to November 15, 2024: 16.48% of duplicate disability rate

(4) Calculation: The actual income from January 16, 2015 is the same as the entry in the column of "actual income in the annexed sheet of calculation of damages", and its aggregate is 39,073,790 won.

B) Limitation of liability: The defendant's ratio of responsibility is 30% (the accident in this case is the part of the bar studs that must take place at a speed of less than 30km per hour, but according to Gap evidence 4, 17, and Eul evidence 2, it appears that the defendant's vehicle runs driving at a speed of 59km per hour, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle seems to be shocking the plaintiff due to such speed violation even though the plaintiff was discovered and operated, the defendant's responsibility is not exempted. However, although the plaintiff who is working as the leader of ETol Trate Trate is able to move by using the moving path installed underground, it was erroneous for the defendant to cross the highway which is prohibited to cross without permission despite being able to move, which is the main cause for the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages. Therefore, the compensation amount to be compensated by the defendant is considered, but the defendant's negligence is determined by 70% of the plaintiff's liability by considering the above facts, and 30% of the defendant's liability is limited).

C) Credit2

① The Defendant’s total of KRW 10,449,560 and KRW 1,208,00 for repair costs of the Defendant’s vehicle and KRW 11,657,560 equivalent to KRW 70 per cent of the Plaintiff’s fault shall be deducted from KRW 8,160,292.

(2) With respect to the lost income from January 16, 2015, the amount of disability benefits the plaintiff received from the Korea Workers' Compensation and Welfare Service shall be deducted from KRW 15,368,560.

D) Condolence money: 6,00,000 won in consideration of all the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, such as the background of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s age and existence of negligence, the degree and degree of the disability, and the period of hospitalization.

4) Unlike the Plaintiff’s assertion, there is no evidence to deem that the instant agreement constitutes invalidation of an unfair contract, as otherwise alleged by the Plaintiff.

5) Therefore, the instant lawsuit filed by the Plaintiff against the Defendant following the Collegiate Agreement is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, since the lawsuit of this case is unlawful, it is decided to dismiss it. It is so decided as per Disposition.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 8 (including additional number), and the result of the physical examination commissioned to the head of the H Hospital in this court, the significant facts, the empirical rule, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2) According to the instant agreement, the Defendant did not deduct KRW 4,300,000 that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not examine the Plaintiff’s actual losses.

【Grounds for Recognition】 The facts of recognition under paragraph (1), the entries of evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings