A. At around 18:20 on February 2, 2015, C: (a) while driving a vehicle B (hereinafter “AR”) on the south B (hereinafter “AV”) along the intersection of the wife population, he saw the front part of the vehicle on which the Defendant was aboard.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

The defendant was provided with outpatient medical treatment at a hospital located in the city of tolerance due to the accident of this case.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a household vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff is liable for damages against the defendant due to the accident of this case alleged by the plaintiff. However, since the defendant received treatment under the plaintiff's payment guarantee and completed the treatment at present, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only 400,000 won to the defendant additionally.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant still remains a pain due to the aftermath of the accident in this case, and must observe the future state continuously and undergo medical treatment.

3. Determination

A. According to the fact of recognition as above, the plaintiff is liable for damages suffered by the defendant as the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Aquatic Vehicle.

B. (i) The scope of the liability for damages is not recognized because the Defendant did not prove any property damage.

⑵ 위자료 ㈎ 참작한 사유 : 피고의 나이, 이 사건 사고의 경위 및 결과, 원고 측의 과실 정도, 피고의 재산상 손해 주장을 받아들이지 않는 점, 기타 이 사건 변론에 나타난 여러 사정 ㈏ 결정 금액 : 1,000,000원 ⑶ 소결론 따라서 원고는 피고에게 위자료 1,000,000원 및 이에 대한 지연손해금을 지급할 의무가 있고, 원고의 피고에 대한 손해배상채무는 위 금액을 초과하여서는 존재하지...