2) The Defendants asserted that the instant accident constituted “damage caused by an accident in the course of driving a truck, which is not an insured motor vehicle, for profit” under Article 19 Subparag. 9 of the instant insurance clause. However, as seen earlier, the instant accident is not a cargo vehicle driven by the victim but a truck owned by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendants’ assertion is not acceptable. (C) 16,473,764 won * 10,980,480 won, future treatment expenses : 5,493,484 won : 200,490 won : 30,493,493,284 won : 205% of the total amount of daily wage for cargo: 30,49,493,284 won : 30,465% of the total maximum working age from 20,464: 29: 30,465% of the total working age from 29: 30,465,295. 296.25% of the maximum working age from 20.

D. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 14, the plaintiff's right of indemnity 1) provides that the plaintiff shall pay insurance money after deducting "amount deducted" from the total amount of "amount calculated according to the standard for payment of insurance money" and "expenses" from the payment of insurance money under the terms and conditions of the comprehensive automobile accident insurance contract concluded between the plaintiff and the victim. The medical expenses, etc. calculated in accordance with each of the above provisions are 11,531,634 won (=16,473,764 won x 70%), the daily profit is 127,115,768 won (=26,92,444 won x 80% x 80%), the consolation money is 21,829,500 won (=45,000,000 won).