1. The Defendant against Plaintiff A, KRW 3,869,464, KRW 400,00 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 200,00 for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Fact that there is no dispute over basic facts [based for recognition], Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings;

A. Around 20:00 on October 2, 2012, D driven by the E Committee (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and shocked the Plaintiff A, who opened the crosswalk to the left from the right side of the left while proceeding on the street in front of G in the West-gu, Western-gu, west-gu, west-gu.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A due to the instant accident, A suffered injury, such as an injury on the left-hand side of the upper village, the first mouth, the second fluorium of the second fluorium, the first fluorium on the left-hand side of the upper village, the first fluorium of the second fluorium, the fluorium-fluorium of the second fluorium, the fluorium,

C. On December 20, 2012, Plaintiff A prepared a written agreement with the Defendant regarding the instant accident (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and received KRW 2.5 million (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff A, the Plaintiff C is the infant of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into an insurance contract with D concerning the instant vehicle.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The instant agreement on the substance of the instant defense contains an agreement on the part other than the areas of harm caused by the instant accident and dental areas.

Nevertheless, the plaintiff A claims for consolation money in violation of this part, so this part of the claim must be dismissed.

B. In light of the content of the instant agreement, it is difficult to deem that the part pertaining to consolation money for the dental area between the Plaintiff A and the Defendant was agreed upon.

(B) According to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff and the Defendant only agreed on the part other than the areas of harm caused by the instant accident and the dental area. However, the Plaintiff claimed compensation for damages (including the foregoing materials) concerning the area of dental practice caused by the instant accident.