1. On December 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s traffic accident occurred in front of Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju, about 19:15 against the Defendant.

1. On December 3, 2015, the fact that the Plaintiff driven a new car on December 19:15, 2015, and obstructed the central line by avoiding the vehicles parked in front of the Seo-gu apartment complex C, Seo-gu, Gwangju, and caused an accident that shocking the left side of the above vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”), and the fact that the Plaintiff repaired the front side of the Defendant vehicle by using his insurance contract, does not conflict between the parties.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that if the defendant did not suffer any injury due to the above accident, the defendant is not liable for damages related thereto, and the defendant asserts that he suffered any injury such as salt, tensions, etc. in the above accident.

B. The judgment of the court below is that the above accident is not a contact with vehicle kis, but is a flick, and that there was no flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick flick g

Although the Defendant submitted a medical certificate (No. 1) as evidence of injury, it is widely known that the circumstance as seen earlier, such as the course of the accident and the Defendant’s physical attack, and the statement that the patient suffered a traffic accident at the hospital alone is shaking the issuance of the medical certificate under the name of “patitis”. The Defendant’s attitude that the patient exchanged the whole of the post-satis and borrowed the loan (the cost of KRW 2,549,000 was 2,549,000), is difficult to believe the contents of the evidence No. 1.

Therefore, the plaintiff's damage liability against the defendant due to the accident of this case no longer exists, and the defendant does so.