1. The Defendant’s KRW 213,780,282 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 9, 2013 to February 9, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On March 11, 1998, C is a vehicle with no number (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 01:10 on March 11, 1998

2) The Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

3) As to the instant accident, the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the Defendant by this Court Decision 2006Da409204 (hereinafter “previous lawsuit”).

(2) On May 2, 2008, this Court issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff by June 20, 2008, and the Plaintiff shall waive the remainder of the claims” (hereinafter referred to as “previous recommending reconciliation”).

(4) The above decision was finalized around that time. The plaintiff's physical examination was reduced to 15% of the normal person on the basis of the appraisal date ( October 8, 2007) and the name of the lease was reduced to 5.92 years from the date of appraisal (39.53 years of the normal male under 37 years of age x 15% of the normal male).

However, since the year 0.92 is about 335 days (365 days x 0.92), the Plaintiff’s name at the previous lawsuit is until September 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4, 10 evidence (including partial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. In a case where a new damage was incurred after the closing of argument in the previous lawsuit ordering compensation for damage due to a tort, the occurrence of the damage could not be predicted at the time of the closing of argument in the lawsuit, and the part of the claim was waived.