1. Basic facts

A. On April 13, 2010, the Plaintiff entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Esthere vehicle owned by G (hereinafter “the instant Plaintiff”) with the content that the insurance period from April 13, 2010 to April 13, 201, and that includes a married couple’s special agreement.

B. On September 4, 2010, H: (a) around 14:54, while driving the Plaintiff’s instant vehicle, he concealed the back part of the FJ-Wurged Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) driven by the Defendant, who was parked on the front line along the Seoyang-dong Seoyang-dong-dong Seoyang-dong, Gyeyang-gu, Mayang-gu.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred with Madice, Madices, Madices, and Madices, etc., and the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for damages arising therefrom, which include 81,915,575 won, and 10 million won, applying 50% of the total amount of daily lost earnings, 159,69,695,690 won, 3,135,460 won, and 10 million won for future treatment expenses, and 81,915,575 won and 10 million won for the counterclaim.

B. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there is no proximate causal relationship between the instant accident and the Defendant’s main disease, and there is no insurance claim payment obligation against the Defendant in relation to the instant accident.

3. As to the recognition of proximate causal relation between the instant accident and the Defendant’s damage, the following circumstances revealed by adding to the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of physical examination of the instant case’s accident and the Defendant’s injury, namely, the degree of the instant accident, such as replacement of the Defendant’s vehicle only to the extent of the rear criminal spread, etc.