All appeals by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff are dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. The first instance court partly accepted the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendants’ counterclaim, and dismissed the Plaintiff’s principal lawsuit and the Defendants’ remainder of counterclaim.

As a result, only the defendants appealed against the part against the defendants, only the defendants' counterclaim is subject to adjudication in the trial court.

Therefore, the following should be examined only on the counterclaim claim of the Defendants.

2. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who runs various insurance business, such as non-life insurance business, and entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with C and C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) for D vehicles, and the Defendant A is a passenger of E vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and Defendant B is a driver of the Defendant vehicle.

B. On June 13, 2014, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straight from a shooting distance that does not have an adjacent signal to the Shicheon-si, Leecheon-si, the accident of collision between the Defendant’s vehicle and the Defendant’s right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

From June 18, 2014 to July 7, 2015, the Defendants suffered injuries to the verte, tensions, tensions, and tensions of the bones that require medical treatment for approximately two weeks due to the instant accident, and Defendant A provided medical treatment for 234 days from June 18, 2014 to Defendant B, and for 222 days from 222 to Fent (2 days and excluding two days) and Gents (excluding two days).

The Plaintiff paid KRW 8,69,790 to Defendant A, and KRW 10,166,060 to Defendant B, respectively, for the medical expenses for the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 4, 7, 8, and 9 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 3, the video of Gap evidence No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. According to the above facts finding as to the occurrence of damages liability, the Plaintiff, the insurer of C, is the Defendants.