1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 22,571,440 as well as to the plaintiff on July 16, 2011.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in Articles 1, 2, and 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, since the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that for the judgment of the court of first instance, in addition to the dismissal or deletion of part of the judgment of the court of first instance as follows.

【The part to be reversed or deleted】 The third part of the third part of the crime of 3rd part was taken into consideration as “the person in question.”

The 4th parallel 19 to 21 shall be advanced as follows.

① “The Plaintiff may not subrogate the right to claim damages against the Plaintiff on the ground that the Plaintiff was not in a mutually complementary relationship with the medical care benefits that the Plaintiff paid to the victim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41892, Dec. 26, 2013)” (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da41892, Dec. 26, 2013) 13, 240, 031, and 3,510,000 for future medical treatment expenses.”

5. The term "the expiration date of the medical care period" under the 10th 10th e.g.

Part 16 of the fifth page is as follows:

'aggressive damage: 13,240,031 x 49% x 6,487,615 x 15 '5 '15,202,435 '17,02,425 ')' of the 6,487,615 '6,615 '.

The 6th parallel 4th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 6th parallel 4th parallel 6,487,615.

The paragraph 3(c) of paragraphs 6 to 17 of the title is as follows.

“C. In response, the Defendant asserts that, among the medical care benefits paid by the Plaintiff, the claim for reimbursement in this part should be rejected, since it is unclear whether the expenses of the victim were paid as the medical expenses of the victim, and that, at least 6,649,920 won of the mutual aid amount already paid to the victim as the medical expenses, the amount exceeding the percentage of the driver of the vehicle in this case should be deducted from the Plaintiff’s claim amount.

1. First of all, according to the purport of the arguments on the above-mentioned types of medical care expenses and the whole purport of the statements and arguments in the health room, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 11-1, 2, and 3.