1. The Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) amounting to KRW 22,310,441, and KRW 543,043 and each of them.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C was driven by a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and received on September 12, 201, around 14:15, part of the rear part of the E vehicle that the Plaintiffs boarded in the vicinity of the Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) around the 14:15, 201.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On September 13, 2011, the Plaintiffs were hospitalized in FIS Hospital, etc., and Plaintiff A was subject to the implementation of FIS on September 22, 2011, and Plaintiff B was subject to the implementation of FIS 5-6 light disc transshipment; Plaintiff B was subject to the implementation on September 27, 2011; Plaintiff B was subject to the implementation of fIS cing light-based and fIS cing light-based cing-6 light-based cing light-based cing light-based cingsings on the left-hand table; on December 14, 2011; and on January 6, 2012, Plaintiff B was subject to the implementation of the fIS cinging light-based cingingsings on the left-hand line.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination on the main claim

A. 1) In the event of this case, the Plaintiffs asserts that they suffered injury to the police, slots, and dogs, etc. due to the accident of this case, and claim compensation for damage therefrom against the Defendant. In light of the fact that the degree of the accident of this case is insignificant, that there was a change in the elimism toward the police, etc. on the MRI taken after the accident, and that the Plaintiffs had the records of receiving several medical treatments against the police, etc. before the accident, the Plaintiffs asserts that the injury to the police, etc. suffered by the Plaintiffs is merely a eliminculation and that it is not caused by the accident. While the eliminism change appears in the elimination of the plaintiffs, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was replaced after the accident of this case, and that the repair cost 463,419 won was spent (in light of the evidence No. 13 of this case, the shock caused by the accident of this case cannot be undermined to the extent that the shock of the plaintiffs could be damaged (in light of the evidence No. 13 of this case.