1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,69,973 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 28, 2012 to November 27, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) B is a vehicle C around 16:15 on May 28, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) While driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle in the vicinity of the death stop of the vehicle driving on the expressway, the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, who driven the vehicle in the front section, was receiving the rear part of the D vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) On June 19, 2012 and August 30, 2012, the Plaintiff received a 5-6 conical signboard removal and vertebrate surgery at the Seoul National University Hospital. 2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 3, purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff suffered from injury to the police station due to the accident of this case, and thus, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred therefrom.

In light of the fact that the plaintiff had been receiving medical treatment for the climatics several times prior to the accident in this case, and that the plaintiff suffered from the injury to the climatics due to the traffic accident on March 1, 2012, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's injury to the climatics of the plaintiff was merely the climatics and not the accident in this case. However, according to the fact inquiry with the Director of the Pung Medical Center of this Court, the defendant's above assertion is rejected, since the accident in this case led to the plaintiff's aggravation of existing symptoms, such as the scope of escape from the 5-6 c

In addition, the defendant asserts that the scope of the defendant's liability should be limited by considering the negligence that the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling, but there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling, and the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be the same as each corresponding item of the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation Amount, and shall be for the convenience of calculation.