1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 85,427,783, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G, respectively, KRW 910,036 and each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 23, 2015, Plaintiff A admitted to the J Care Center located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant Medical Care Center”) located in the Republic of Korea (hereinafter “instant Medical Care Center”).

Plaintiff

A, on April 27, 2015, with wheel chairs worn a control unit and worn it, was left mixed in the corridor of the medical center of this case, and suffered bodily injury, such as external wound-free depression, schina, and schina, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Plaintiff

B, C, D, E, F, and G are children of the Plaintiff A.

C. From July 21, 2014 to July 21, 2015, the Defendant entered into an insurance contract with the instant medical care center and the instant medical care center (or nursing staff) to cover damages within a total of KRW 100,000,000, where a claim for damages is filed due to damage inflicted on another person while performing his/her duties.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense of safety

A. On July 20, 2015, Plaintiff A’s spouse K, on behalf of Plaintiff A, agreed to compensate for the instant accident at KRW 9,712,00 on behalf of the Defendant, and agreed to not file a civil lawsuit against the instant accident.

K as the spouse of the plaintiff A, has the right to file a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff A, and there is a common right to file a lawsuit on behalf of the plaintiff.

Even if the above secondary action agreement is an act of unauthorized Representation beyond the scope of the ordinary authority of attorney, since the Plaintiff was dementia at the time of Plaintiff A, the Defendant was believed to have the authority to act on behalf of Plaintiff A and there was a justifiable reason to believe as such, and thus, Plaintiff A is liable to act of expression under Article 126 of the Civil Act as to the agreement of the Plaintiff’s partial action.

Ultimately, the filing of the instant lawsuit by the Plaintiff A is unlawful against the agreement to bring an action against the Plaintiff.

B. The agent’s judgment is duly constituted.