1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Defendant does not exist with respect to an accident listed in the attached list.

2...

On November 28, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted to the purport that the Defendant was partly damaged by the Defendant’s 1996 Franchisa III, which was the Defendant’s vehicle, due to an accident in which the insured vehicle was influence of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant agreed on December 15, 2010 by adding these damages, etc. to KRW 180,000,000, and decided to waive all rights, the Defendant would not additionally demand the Defendant to pay the additional damages by asserting that the damage of the 1000,000 won following the left side and the market price decline damage of the Defendant’s vehicle. However, the Defendant did not bear any obligation with respect to the damages caused by the instant accident.

With respect to damages for illegal acts committed by the murderor, when the perpetrator and the victim agreed to receive a certain amount of money and to waive the remaining claims, the damage was incurred thereafter.

Therefore, even though it is impossible to claim compensation again, the agreement is reached in a situation where it is difficult to accurately confirm the scope of the damage, and it is impossible to expect in light of the circumstances at the time of the agreement, and it is reasonable to view that the parties would not have reached a settlement with the agreed amount under social norms if they anticipated the damage after the conclusion of the agreement. As such, if the damage was serious, the intent of the parties concerned cannot be deemed to have renounced their right to claim compensation, and thus, they can claim compensation again.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da42797 delivered on September 14, 2001). In addition, a claim for damages due to a tort ceases to exist by prescription if the victim fails to exercise his right for three years from the date the victim became aware of the damage and the perpetrator. Here, the "date when the victim became aware of the damage" means the victim's actual and specific awareness of the damage, and the presumption or awareness of the damage is sufficient.