1. The Defendant’s KRW 3,478,985 to Plaintiff A and 5% per annum from November 2, 2016 to August 25, 2020, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 2, 2016, when FF vehicles operated by E driving along two lanes on the Myeongsan-do road along the Gyeongnam Highway along the Gyeongnam Highway, there was an accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”) involving the left side of the G vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) that driven the one lane as the FF vehicle driven along the two lanes, which led to a serious impact on the left side of the G vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. The Plaintiff A was on board the Defendant’s vehicle at the time.

Plaintiff

A caused by the instant accident, A was treated as outpatients until November 3, 2017, by suffering from injuries, such as climatic, climatic, stress, etc.

C. Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, the result of the physical appraisal by H Hospital (I), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion A suffered from injury, such as external stress disorder, due to the accident of this case. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A the amount of KRW 1,393,926 as medical treatment expenses in the future, KRW 28,606,074 as passive damage, and KRW 10 million as consolation money, and the plaintiff B and C are obligated to pay KRW 5 million as consolation money.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the mental disorder (over-the-counter stress disorder) alleged by the Plaintiff A is caused by the instant accident.

In addition, since the plaintiff A did not wear the safety level at the time of the accident of this case, it is necessary to offset the negligence.

3. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of the liability for damages, the Defendant is liable for compensating for the damages, as the Defendant suffered injury, such as external stress disorder, etc., on the part of the Plaintiff Company A due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle

The Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety labelling at the time, or otherwise, erred in expanding damages. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge such fact.

On the other hand, however, the body.