1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On December 26, 2013, at around 19:30 on December 26, 2013, the Plaintiff (D) suffered injuries, such as brain damage and cerebral cerebral blood, etc., by cutting the crosswalk in front of the Flag care hospital located in E, due to a traffic accident.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was 15 years of age, and G, a person with parental authority of the Plaintiff, was designated.

B. Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with a vehicle dealing with the instant accident, and Defendant C is an adjuster appointed by G.

C. On June 19, 2015, G agreed with the Defendant Company to the effect that, on behalf of the Plaintiff, a claims for damages arising from the instant accident were filed by the Defendant Company via Defendant C, and that, on receiving KRW 1160 million from the Defendant Company all damages, such as consolation money, lost profit, and future treatment expenses, the Defendant Company and “any rights related to the instant accident shall be waived, and no civil or criminal lawsuit or objection shall be raised for any reason.”

(hereinafter “instant agreement”). D.

The damages amounting to KRW 110 million as stipulated in the instant agreement was calculated by the Defendant Company’s totaling KRW 60,000,000, 425,356,740, 359,230,830, and 315,412,430, based on the reply received by the Defendant Company to conduct medical appraisal at Ha Hospital and II Hospital.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the amount stipulated in the agreement of this case is less than that stipulated in the agreement of this case, and that the agreement was reached in the state of G with insufficient transaction experience and rashness, and thus, the agreement is null and void as an unfair practice under Article 104 of the Civil Code, and the agreement is part of the future treatment costs due to the accident of this case to the defendants.