1. The instant lawsuit was completed by sentencing on January 26, 201.

2. The costs of the lawsuit after the application for an additional judgment are filed.

1.The following facts of basic facts shall be apparent in the records or significant to this Court:

The plaintiff received KRW 130,00,00 from the defendant in relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form (hereinafter "traffic accident of this case"). The plaintiff gave up all rights to the defendant and gave up any lawsuit or objection to the defendant (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"). After the agreement of this case, the plaintiff suffered additional damages to the plaintiff, the agreement of this case constitutes an unfair juristic act and becomes null and void or the declaration of intention due to mistake is cancelled and its validity is no longer effective. Thus, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages compensation claim against the defendant, asserting that the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for additional damages amounting to KRW 5,011,880, the additional damages amount due to the traffic accident of this case, and delay damages damages amounting to KRW 5,01,00,000,000, the above court rendered a ruling of dismissal on October 19, 2010.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appealed as this Court 2010Na17244, but this Court rendered a ruling of dismissing the Plaintiff’s appeal on January 26, 201, and the Plaintiff re-appealed as Supreme Court Decision 201Da17656 Decided May 26, 201, but the Supreme Court rendered a ruling of dismissing the appeal on May 26, 201, on the ground that the instant case does not fall under any subparagraph of Article 3 of the Trial of Small Claims Act, the said judgment became final and conclusive on May 26, 201.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the above 2010Na17244 decision was omitted from the judgment on the argument that the agreement in this case was null and void as a juristic act or unfair juristic act contrary to social order, and that the plaintiff sought an additional trial pursuant to Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act

3. The omission of the judgment under Article 212 of the Civil Procedure Act refers to the fact that the court rendered a judgment with the intent to judge the whole of the plaintiff's claim, but the part in which the judgment became objectively known remains.