1. The time limit for the insurance contract listed in the attached Table 2 with respect to the traffic accidents listed in the annexed Table 1, which occurred on June 30, 2008.

1. The parties' assertion

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion as indicated in the [Attachment 1] List (hereinafter “instant accident”), the Defendant received hospital treatment for 87 days from June 30, 2008 to September 11, 2009 and hospital treatment for 202 days under the diagnosis of c Council members and Dneical department located in the original state, and the 87 days from the diagnosis of c Council members and Dogne department located in the Dagal department located in the original state, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 12,593,680 as medical expenses, as shown in the [Attachment 2] List.

After that, on September 14, 2009, the Defendant agreed to file a complaint with the Plaintiff, under the pretext of “all legal damages including materials, suspension of business, and other amounts of damages and losses,” to receive KRW 9,900,000 from the Plaintiff and not to raise any civil or criminal objection.”

Nevertheless, on July 24, 2014, more than five years after the date of the above agreement, the Defendant filed a false diagnosis at G Hospital located in the Republic of Korea on July 24, 2014, and filed a request for additional compensation with the Plaintiff by asserting that the above frame was caused by the instant accident.

However, as above, at the time of September 14, 2009, the Plaintiff agreed to bring an action against the Defendant by paying KRW 9,900,000 to the Defendant for all damages. Moreover, the frame asserted by the Defendant cannot be seen as an accident of this case. Thus, the Plaintiff did not have an obligation to pay additional insurance money to the Defendant.

Accordingly, the plaintiff seeks confirmation that the defendant has no obligation to pay insurance money.

B. On July 11, 2014, the Defendant’s assertion was diagnosed by G Hospital located in the Republic of Korea as “The point at which the occurrence occurred is not clear, but it appears to be the opinion of the RoI’s opinion on the alley of the constitution of the 7 chest trend.” This is due to the instant accident.

In addition, at the time of the agreement between the defendant and the plaintiff on September 14, 2009, it was not anticipated about the 7 scarke, and it became known by the diagnosis of the hospital that should reach the point of July 11, 2014.

Therefore, despite the agreement on September 14, 2009, the agreement has been made.