1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs who are ordered to pay additional amounts below.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff Gap, at the time of the agreement in this case, renounced all of the legal damages including medical expenses, lost damage, consolation money, etc., instead of receiving KRW 50 million, and the name of diagnosis caused by the accident in this case of the plaintiff Gap, which served as the basis of the agreement in this case, was the right pelvis, the pelvis, the pelvis and the left pelvis, and the pelvis, the pelvis, the left pelvis, and the pelvis, which were the basis of the agreement in this case (hereinafter "existing disability in this case"), which could have been predicted at the time of the agreement in this case. Since the plaintiff had already renounced his right to claim compensation for damages caused by the aftermath disability in this case, the plaintiff's claim in this case of this case was unlawful since it violated the part of the lawsuit agreement in this case, which is the content of the agreement in this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's objection in this case is unlawful.

B. As to tort damages caused by the relevant legal doctrine, when the perpetrator and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount and give up the remainder of the claim, the damage was incurred thereafter.

Therefore, even though it is impossible to claim compensation again, the agreement was made in a situation where it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damage, and it is difficult to anticipate the damage in light of the circumstances at the time of the agreement, and it is reasonable to view that the parties would have not agreed on the amount of the agreement if they anticipated the damage after the occurrence of a serious damage, the intent of the parties concerned cannot be deemed to have waived the right to claim compensation for such damage.