1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. A. On July 6, 2011, the Plaintiff was getting on and was going on the letoba at the Gato-dong, Busan-dong, Gato-dong, Busan-dong, but the driver of B (hereinafter referred to as “the instant dial vehicle”) violated the signal and caused the above letoba, and caused the injury to the Plaintiff due to the shock.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). B.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded an insurance contract for the above sea-going vehicles under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

C. On August 10, 201, the day after the instant accident, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,100,000 from the Defendant as damages for the said accident, and was paid damages around that time.

As such, the Defendant agreed to make additional compensation in accordance with a medical specialist’s opinion in the event of a subsequent disability or serious injury with a causal relationship with the instant accident.

(hereinafter referred to as the "agreement in this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap 1, 2, and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The defendant asserts that the judgment on the main defense of this case is dismissed inasmuch as the lawsuit of this case was filed in violation of the agreement of this case, which is the subordinate lawsuit agreement.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff claimed the post-accident disability in accordance with the accident in this case and sought compensation for damages, and agreed to compensate for the damages arising from the post-accident in accordance with the expert opinion (Evidence A 3), so the instant lawsuit cannot be deemed to have been in violation of the agreement in this case.

Therefore, the defendant's main defense cannot be accepted.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the Plaintiff continued to receive pain treatment due to the instant accident. Around April 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff continued to undergo an operation to perform the right sculpary sculpary sculpary and the right sculpary sculpary sculpary sculpary.

3.2