1. The request is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. At around 04:03 on February 6, 2015, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle B, who was driven by the Defendant claiming the Plaintiff, shocked the Plaintiff’s Category BW M6 USCA (North America CBC) vehicle on the roads of the private distance from the Shin-dong, Young-dong, Ansan-si, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (Seoul Special Metropolitan City).

Plaintiff

The vehicle caused the damage of KRW 25,030,390 at the repair cost of the small-line tower (blick), such as KRW 31,300,390, and the repair cost of the front-lineer.

The defendant unilaterally calculated the repair cost of eight million won and paid it to the plaintiff, and this amount was calculated and paid to the plaintiff when both the plaintiff and the defendant did not know that damage was inflicted on the part of the soft tower.

Therefore, the defendant should compensate for damages to the part of the soft tower.

2. On February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 11,680,000 as compensation for damages against the Defendant and the Plaintiff’s vehicle on February 25, 2015 in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the evidence No. 1, and thereafter, the Defendant paid the agreed amount.

When a compromise contract is concluded, unless there are special circumstances, the rights and obligations relationship based on the previous legal relationship becomes extinct due to the original legal relationship, so the parties to the contract shall not ask whether the previous legal relationship has been left or not, and a new legal relationship exists by the compromise contract without asking whether the previous legal relationship has been left. Even if there is an error in the declaration of intent of a compromise contract, this does not relate to matters other than the qualifications or purpose

(Civil Act Article 733). The plaintiff and the defendant agree to compensate for all damage incurred to the plaintiff's vehicle through the above agreement, and otherwise, there is a lack of evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant have limited the part of the vehicle's damage to the plaintiff's vehicle in detail at the time of agreement and only the part of the vehicle's damage is subject to reconciliation (the evidence No. 1 and No. 2 is prepared after the agreement) and the plaintiff's assertion