1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff) shall dismiss the counterclaim;

2. A traffic accident on December 19, 2013 of the vehicles listed in Attachment List No. 1, 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract for business use, as described in attached Table 4, with respect to the B dump truck owned by the GRF Co., Ltd. Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant truck”) as the insured.

B. Around 13:30 on December 19, 2013, which is an employee of the GRR Co., Ltd., caused a traffic accident leading to the instant high-speed bus (hereinafter “the instant damaged vehicle”) with the instant truck from the vicinity of Pyeongtaek-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Ycheon-Yyeong-Scheon-Yan-Sung-Sung-Sung-Sung-Sung-

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

Around February 12, 2014, the Defendant drafted a written agreement to the effect that the Plaintiff received KRW 7 million (including KRW 1.5 million) from the Plaintiff for a agreed deposit, and that “No civil lawsuit or objection shall be raised in connection with any accident that occurred in the vicinity of the ordinary quarter of the highway between Pyeongtaek 13:30 on December 19, 2013.”

The agreement is referred to as "the agreement of this case".

(i) [Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including evidence with serial numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings;

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On February 12, 2014, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 7 million from the Plaintiff under the pretext of agreement; and (b) concluded with the Plaintiff to the effect that “it does not file a civil lawsuit or objection with respect to the instant traffic accident in the future; and (c) the said agreement constitutes an agreement to bring an action against the Plaintiff.”

However, since the Defendant sought the payment of additional damages related to the instant traffic accident after the instant agreement, the Plaintiff sought a confirmation against the Defendant on the existence of the obligation, such as the purport of the claim in the principal lawsuit, and sought rejection as there is no benefit of protecting the rights against the Defendant’s counterclaim.

B. A summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant suffered a great bodily injury due to the instant traffic accident.