A. On August 21, 2015, the Plaintiff concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement as shown in attached Table 2 with Nonparty C and D private taxi (hereinafter, the Plaintiff’s vehicle) with respect to the period of mutual aid as a mutual aid business entity under the Passenger Transport Service Act from August 21, 2015 to August 21, 2016.

Defendant A is a driver of E-car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant”), Defendant B is a passenger, and Defendant B is a passenger.

B. On August 10, 2016, Nonparty C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on August 10, 2016, and driving the two-lane of the 5-lane road in the vicinity of the Dosan-dong, Gwangju-dong, Seosan-dong, in the remote distance room from the riverside of the Joseon University, and stopping the two-lane of the 5-lane road as the seaside of the Joseon University, and the vehicle stops as the body of the vehicle.

Defendant A, while driving on the above road by driving the Defendant vehicle, did not avoid the entry of the Plaintiff vehicle into one lane, and did not have the front right gate of the Defendant vehicle and shocked the front front gate of the Plaintiff vehicle with the front wheeler and the front wheel part.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". . [See the drawings below] . (See the ground for recognition] . (No dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, 4-1 through 7, Eul evidence 3 and 4, the result of the dynamic image of the accident of this court (Evidence 3-1 of evidence No. 3), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants were not liable for damages since they did not suffer injury due to the instant accident.

(excluding the portion of physical damage). As to this, the Defendants asserted that they suffered each injury due to the instant accident, and filed a claim for payment of damages against the Plaintiff, who is the automobile mutual aidr for the Plaintiff

B. According to the evidence No. 5, No. 6, and No. 7 (including some number), the facts that the Defendants received treatment under the name of diagnosis, such as the Gyeongchina’s salt, tension, etc., after the instant accident, can be acknowledged.

However, each description of Eul 4 and 5 evidence and the thinking video of this Court (A evidence 3 1, 2).