1. The plaintiff (appointed party)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

3...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment, except where the relevant part is modified as follows. Thus, this is accepted by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, each “Appointed A” in the 3rd and 5th and 6th of the 3rd and 5th of the 5th of the 1st and 5th of the 6th of the

B. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part Nos. 5, 21, 7, and 8 of the 5th to 7 shall be raised as follows.

(C) According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 5,928,770 of the net H’s medical expenses due to the insurance proceeds arising from the instant accident can be acknowledged. Of the above money, KRW 2,371,508, which is equivalent to the network H’s negligence (= KRW 5,928,770 x 0.4), should be deducted from the instant property damages amount.

Furthermore, in full view of the purport of the evidence No. 2-34 and the entire pleadings, F paid KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiffs, who were the inheritors of the GH on June 30, 2016 under investigation due to the instant accident, by accepting directly receiving KRW 30,000,000 insurance money for the Samsung Fire Drivers. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs agreed that “the deceased H’s successors will not raise any question regarding the instant accident thereafter.”

"A written agreement with the purport that it shall be recognized that the amount was part of damage compensation (property damage) unless there are circumstances such as clearly stating that the amount received at the time of the agreement is paid as compensation, in case where the victim agreed that it shall not be punished for the perpetrator in the course of the investigation or criminal trial against the perpetrator of the illegal act by receiving the amount in the name of the agreement from the perpetrator. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the amount was paid as part of compensation (property damage). Thus, Supreme Court Decision 87Meu313 delivered on May 24, 198, and Supreme Court Decision 191 delivered on August 13, 191.