2. Judgment on a counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s judgment on the ground of the main safety resistance sought payment of KRW 5,260,740 as the medical expenses (i.e., a medical corporation’s roadside Hospital KRW 2,157,550 as the medical corporation’s roadside Hospital KRW 3,103,190), and the Plaintiff asserted that there was no benefit to file a lawsuit.

According to the evidence Nos. 14 and 15, since the above expenses are recognized as the amount paid as the physical appraisal expenses in the proceedings of this case, this part of the claim is dismissed as unlawful inasmuch as it is the amount paid as the litigation expenses and there is no benefit to seek a lawsuit separately (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200).

B. The ground for finding the existence of liability for damages: The plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with B with respect to the motor vehicle C (hereinafter "Plaintiff vehicle") in the absence of any dispute, each entry of Gap evidence No. 1 (including the serial number), images, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

On April 23, 2013, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 23, 2013, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving the first-lane of the four-lanes along the coast of the Gyeonggi Emphack-gu Gyeonggi-si, Ansan-si, the right side, such as the empic road, at the right side of the four-lanes of the west-gu, Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who stopped in accordance with the new subparagraph, and thereby, caused the Defendant’s injury to the Defendant’s emp vehicle, such as the dmp

(hereinafter “instant accident”) According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident.