1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 21,411,492 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from March 26, 2012 to October 8, 2015 to the Plaintiff B.

1. In fact, Plaintiff A, while driving a C vehicle on July 14, 2010 around 17:40, was faced with the E-vehicle in the opposite direction during the U.S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. S. A suffered injury, such as the two upper T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T. T., and E. S. S. S. S. S. S. S.

Plaintiff

On August 21, 2015, A filed a lawsuit against malicious accident insurance company, the insurer of D driving vehicles, claiming compensation for damages caused by the previous accident, and on August 21, 2015, A was sentenced to the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na65402 (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Na65402) that the malicious accident insurance company is obligated to pay to A 103,049,283 won and damages for delay from July 14, 2010.

In this judgment, the labor disability rate of Plaintiff A due to the previous accident was 91% from July 14, 2010 to December 12, 2010, from December 13, 2010, from December 13, 2010 to January 5, 2016, 24.34% from January 6, 201 to September 20, 201, and 3% from September 21, 2021, from September 21, 201.

(C) On January 1, 2016, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) was at the market with 4.5% until January 5, 2016; (b) was at the market with the upper right hand by 6% until January 5, 2016; (c) was at the market with 22% of mental health disorder, such as depression; and (d) was at the market with the 3% permanent disability, etc. with the climatic disorder by September 20, 2019. On March 26, 2012, Plaintiff A was on board the bus at the new village, where the bus, which was left left at the intersection of the new village article distance, was faced with the F vehicle and the part (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”); and (d) thereby, Plaintiff A suffered from injury, such as multiple fluoral fluorium, fluorium, and so forth.

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the said F vehicle.

[Evidence] Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, as a whole, and all pleadings.