1. In relation to the accident described in the attached list, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay compensation for personal damage to the Defendant is 100.

1. On September 30, 2019, at around 09:00, the basic facts are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the Plaintiff gets at the two-lanes of “D” lanes in Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu; (b) on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while driving the vehicle on the two-lanes of the fourth line of the fourth line; and (c) the part, which is left-hand at the left-hand turn signal from one lane, of the Defendant’s driver’s vehicle standing on the left-hand turn-hand turn-hand turn-on (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”); (d) there is no dispute between the parties; or (e) the entire purport of the written statements and changes in the evidence set forth in subparagraphs 1 and 2.

2. The plaintiff asserts that although the accident of this case was insignificant and the defendant was not injured, the defendant demanded compensation such as medical expenses, and thus, the defendant sought confirmation of the non-existence of liability.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the amount of KRW 2,461,887 should be paid from the plaintiff as compensation for personal damage caused by the accident of this case (i.e., KRW 175,849 x 14 days), medical expenses 3,407,710, and consolation money 5 million should be paid from the plaintiff.

3. Determination as to whether the Plaintiff’s liability for compensation for personal damage exists

A. According to the overall purport of the theory on the entry and change of the evidence No. 5, the Defendant was deemed to have received hospital treatment 27 times from the date of the instant accident to October 7, 2019 from the date of the instant accident, and thereafter received hospital treatment from the G Council members until January 18, 2020. However, in light of the content of the instant accident, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was either necessary for hospitalization during the instant period due to the instant accident, or lost labor capability during the pertinent period of hospitalization and the said hospitalization.

It is difficult to recognize, and there is no other evidence.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion of lost damages cannot be accepted.

B. According to the overall purport of the statement and changes in the evidence No. 5, the above fact is that the Defendant’s hospitalization and treatment costs in total were 3,407,710.