A. As to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) KRW 5,300,430 and KRW 4,661,040 among them, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 5,300 and November 12, 2013.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding C Freight Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. At around 11:30 on January 25, 2005, Defendant A (D) stopped in front of the station in order to pay the traffic fee while driving a Fununst vehicle (hereinafter the Defendant’s vehicle) carrying Defendant B (E) on the side on the side of the vehicle (hereinafter the Defendant’s vehicle) and driving the Funst vehicle (E) on the side of the vehicle located in Heung-ri Eup at Chicago-si.

However, while G driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and driving it tolucent, the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle in stopping was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case")

In the instant accident, Defendant A suffered from the scopical and scopical scopic scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopical scopic scopical scopic scopic s

On the other hand, G did not have any particular injury due to the instant accident.

After the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 9,970,960 as the medical expenses of Defendant A, and KRW 48,288,260 as the medical expenses of Defendant B, and KRW 48,288,260 as the medical expenses of Defendant A, respectively. From May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 639,390 as the medical expenses of Defendant A, and KRW 13,686,050 as the medical expenses of Defendant B, respectively.

E. The Plaintiff paid KRW 70,00 on February 7, 2005 at the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, and paid KRW 137,300 on January 31, 2005 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The defendant's vehicle is not visiblely damaged in appearance.

F. After the accident of this case, the Defendants complained of symptoms so far and continued to receive medical treatment.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Gap evidence Nos. 8 through 14, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), each physical appraisal result, traffic accident appraisal result, fact-finding, each fact-finding, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the principal lawsuit and counterclaim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident of this case is very minor and there is no causal relationship with the injury of the defendants. Thus, the plaintiff paid to the defendants.