The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of a private taxi for business purpose C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to DUV vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 20:00 on January 12, 2019, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and stopped in the signal atmosphere on the front of the apartment site in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, and the Defendant’s driver followed the Defendant’s vehicle. The rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked in front of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff suffered injury to salt, tension, etc. in the instant accident, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, and received hospital treatment from F Council members for nine days from January 14, 2019 to January 22, 2019, and received hospital treatment from January 23, 2019 to February 27, 2019.

The defendant shall pay 420,000 won to the plaintiff at the repair cost of the plaintiff's vehicle on January 16, 2019, and from February 11, 2019 to the same year.

3. Until 22.2, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,906,300 to the Plaintiff’s medical expenses.

On the other hand, the Bupyeongcheon Police Station requested the National Scientific Investigation and Research Institute to appraise the plaintiff's injury caused by the instant accident, and the National Scientific Investigation and Investigation Institute, a traffic accident interpretation program, conducted an appraisal of the Madi (MAYMO), stating that "the possibility of causing excessive physical change (in the instant accident is low, however, it is presumed that the occurrence of an excessive physical change (in the instant accident) may be accompanied by the minor two or temporary symptoms (e.g., inconvenience) that are favorable within several days."

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff 1’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of Defendant 1’s driver who neglected the duty of front-time care, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of Defendant 1, is the Plaintiff.