The part of the judgment of the court below against the defendant is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court rejected the Defendant’s defense on the ground that the instant agreement did not affect the instant claim seeking the payment of damages arising from the subsequent disability, such as the Plaintiff’s symptoms of mental illness and developments in both sides, which could not have been anticipated at the time of the agreement, based on its stated reasoning.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the court below is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles on the non-committee agreement

2. Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment and the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited by the lower court in light of the records, it is justifiable to have determined that the causal relationship between the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s present symptoms of the present situation on both sides is recognized. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules,

3. As to the third ground of appeal, if the expected amount of damages, such as future medical expenses, has already been incurred at the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, the damages in the past part can be compensated only for the damages actually incurred. As such, with respect to the expected medical expenses up to the time of the closure of the arguments in the fact-finding court, it should be recognized as king's medical expenses only to the extent that the actual medical expenses have been incurred. If the expected medical expenses have not been spent by the time of the closing of arguments, then the damages should be calculated by considering whether such expenses will be required

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da5378 delivered on April 23, 2002, etc.). The judgment below is erroneous.