1. On January 23, 2014, with respect to traffic accidents that occur in front of the office of the transportation Dong and Dong of the Gunsan-si on the roads around 10:00.

The plaintiff's main claim and the defendant's counterclaim are examined together.

1. The Defendant alleged that he sustained a bodily injury due to the traffic accident caused by the Plaintiff’s negligence, and thus, sought payment of KRW 1,061,669, medical expenses for temporary closure of business, KRW 400,00, and KRW 96,00,00, and KRW 1,557,669, in total, of KRW 1,00,00,000.

2. Whether liability for damages occurred, is examined as to whether the Defendant sustained an injury due to the instant accident.

According to the statements in Section B 6 through 9, the defendant from January 23, 2014 to the same year.

2. From February 11, 2014 to February 11, 2014, he/she was hospitalized into C Hospital as a scopical base.

3. It is recognized that by up to 20.20. D hospital received outpatient treatment due to neutism, cirrosis, etc. from the hospital.

However, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6, Gap evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and the overall purport of the arguments and arguments, the plaintiff committed a collision with the defendant's vehicle that was driven by right while going through in order to yield the course to the vehicle coming behind the Si/Gun transportation Dong office in the front of the Si/Gun transportationdong office on Jan. 23, 2014 (hereinafter "the accident in this case"), the degree of damage to both the plaintiff and the defendant's vehicle is extremely minor, and the defendant received ties between the plaintiff and the defendant Nos. 4-5 and 6-7 around 208, and the adjacent Sinsan nuclear change is observed at Nos. 3-4, and 6-7, respectively. The defendant can be recognized as having been treated as a king or a Escopic disease before the accident in this case.

In light of these circumstances, it is not sufficient to recognize that the aforementioned evidence alone is sufficient to recognize that the defendant sustained injury to the extent that the defendant is hospitalized for 14 days and received hospital treatment for 12 days due to the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(In order to see, the Defendant’s scopical base seems to be based on scopic or scopic diseases unrelated to the instant accident). Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine it.