1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 24,10,909 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 25, 2015 to April 28, 2016.

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with B, around August 17, 2011, with the content that the Plaintiff would compensate others for damage caused by an accident that occurred while C2.5 tons of truck vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “deficing vehicles”) possess, use, or manage them as indicated in attached Table 1, as the content of the insurance contract.

At around 20:00 on September 17, 201, E, an employee of the insured insured of the foregoing insurance contract, driven a melting vehicle under the influence of alcohol content of approximately 0.124%, and driven the road immediately before the entry into the outer cycle of the Goyang-si, Yangyang-si, with a view to shocking back of the F vehicle on the Defendant boarding (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Defendant was on board the back seat of the victimized vehicle, but was diagnosed on September 20, 201 after the instant accident, that there was a need for a two-day stable price rate from the Gneinary surgery to the Gneinary two weeks due to the external wound, the climatic base, etc., and received medical treatment from around that time to December 24, 2015, at H Hospital including the instant hospital, and the Geinsan Hospital, etc.

As indicated in attached Table 2, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,274,920,00 in total, from September 17, 201 to December 24, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 30,274,920 in the H hospital and the Gansan Hospital, etc., and paid KRW 7,50,000 in total, as the provisional payment, to the Defendant on February 11, 2014.

【In the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including a branch number), and the purport of the entire pleadings, the mental injury of the plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, such as a recurrence of unknown whereabouts among the injuries alleged by the plaintiff by the defendant, is based on the defendant’s king evidence, and there is no causal relationship with the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant is out of the total sum of the medical expenses and the provisional payment amount paid by the plaintiff, and the payment of attached Form Nos. 2, which is recognized as proximate causal relationship among the medical expenses paid by the plaintiff.