beta
Text
1. The defendant,
A. The Plaintiff’s KRW 99,150,724 as well as 5% per annum from March 6, 2013 to August 3, 2016.
Reasons
1. Occurrence of liability for damages;
A. The facts of recognition (1) The defendant is operating D in Seo-gu Daejeon Metropolitan City C.
(2) On March 6, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an employment contract with the Defendant and sustained an injury, such as the alleys, Dam salm salm salm salm salm 5, and salm salm salm salm salm salm salm salm ssalm s
(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 3, 6, Eul’s evidence No. 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.
B. (1) The main point of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed with the Defendant to waive the right to claim damages and to not punish a civil or criminal penalty, and thus, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful.
(2) In light of the following circumstances, although the Plaintiff and the Defendant were found to have written a written agreement around May 2013, it is recognized that the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not pay the agreed amount to the Plaintiff in the process of the formation of the written agreement, namely, the Defendant did not want to punish the Defendant for civil or criminal punishment, and the lower court stated that the said written agreement was “return to the head of the Daejeon Metropolitan Police Station” at the lower end, the said written agreement is a criminal agreement that the Plaintiff does not want criminal punishment, and cannot be deemed as a non-litigation agreement that does not intend to file a civil lawsuit.
Even if the above agreement is deemed to have been made, comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances: (a) the date of preparation of the written agreement is before August 31, 2013 when the medical care was completed on or around May 2013; (b) it was difficult to ascertain whether the high level of functional disorder remains in spine even after the medical care was completed; and (c) the fact that the Defendant did not have the agreement paid to the Plaintiff as seen earlier, it is difficult to confirm the scope of damage accurately due to the accident.