1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 201, the Defendant driven the C Poter Cargo on July 20, 201, and led to the Defendant’s injury, i.e., e., the E treatment 14 tons of truck drivers, the back side of the truck freight vehicle, which was going to the Hasco from the Hasco to the Hasco, due to the occupational negligence while driving from the C Poter to the Hasco, about 50km from the Hasco, the right side of the truck, which was going to the Hasco, while neglecting the duty of her former care at the speed of about 50km from the Hasco, the Plaintiff, who was on the Defendant’s vehicle, was suffering from the injury of the Defendant’s vehicle, focusing on the fact that there was no open address requiring approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

On August 20, 201, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed that if the Defendant pays the Plaintiff KRW 17,000,000 to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff would not raise a civil or criminal objection (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 15,00,000 won remaining after deducting the amount of 2,00,000,000 won for damages under the agreement of this case which the plaintiff had already been paid (=17,00,000 won - 2,000,000 won) and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 5% per annum from August 21, 2011 to October 7, 2014, which is obvious that the record is the date when the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the defendant from August 21, 201 to October 7, 2014, and from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc.

3. As such, the plaintiff's claim of this case should be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just and correct.