A. The recognition 1) B is as follows: (a) a D car on the right-side path located in Sungnam-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Jungwon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on January 8, 2015, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving and stopping the vehicle, the vehicle was pushed ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle which was stopped immediately after the said vehicle was pushed down due to a slope (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered an injury to the Gyeong-in, etc. due to the instant accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds of recognition, evidence No. 1,

2. The scope of liability for damages shall be as follows, and in principle, the period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded:

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

[Reasons for Recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence No. 4, the result of the commission of physical examination to the Tolsian Hospital, significant facts, empirical rules, and the purport of the whole pleadings

A. Personal information 1) Personal information : E-born men, women at the end of life expectancy 2, 204, and the period of operation: claims that the Plaintiff earned income of KRW 5,098,333 per month while the Plaintiff was engaged in the work as a worker in the art. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is insufficient to acknowledge it only by the descriptions in the evidence Nos. 4 and 8, and there is no other evidence to support it, and thus, the 3rd disability and the rate of loss of labor ability of the ordinary worker 1).