1. The parties' assertion

A. With respect to the traffic accident described in Paragraph (1) of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the accident vehicle cannot be deemed to have entirely damaged the household sets, in the absence of any direct shock or any excessive shock by the Defendant’s household sets, while the accident vehicle directly shocked the bags containing the Defendant’s household sets, and as such, it cannot be seen that the said household sets were actually damaged at all when deeming the household sets as the land, and thus, the Plaintiff is not liable to compensate the Defendant for the damage to the household sets due to the said accident.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant is the insurer of a vehicle shocking the defendant, and is obligated to compensate the defendant for the damages incurred in relation to the above accident. The defendant is obligated to pay the defendant the amount of damages, 7.830,000 won, which is the price of the household, and damages for delay, since the accident occurred in the Do where the vehicle involved in the trip, which is leading the household-to-face, is against the defendant's right development, and the above household-to-day fee has been damaged due to its shock.

2. Determination:

A. On October 22, 2013, the fact that the vehicle C, which purchased an insurance policy for the Plaintiff, was in the station (hereinafter “instant accident”) with the wheels front of driving seat, etc. of the Defendant walking along the front road of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seoul around October 2013, there is no dispute between the parties, and according to the result of the inquiry into the president of the Ecopier Cooperative, 7.83,00 won, the aggregate of the price of the set claimed by the Defendant to be destroyed, is the official price of the Ecopier Cooperative, and the Defendant was in the shock of three weeks prior to the instant accident. However, considering the fact that the Ecopier Cooperative gave an answer to the Defendant that reuse was impossible in its entirety because the cosmetic was a provoking, but only on the basis of these circumstances and evidence Nos. 1 through 3, each of these facts are destroyed by the damage of the Defendant’s ownership in the instant accident.