1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) from April 17, 2016 to KRW 16,635,990, respectively, and each of the said amounts to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 17, 2016, the net A driving of the Oralbaon around 11:41 on April 17, 2016, and driving forward the front road of the Elmbae Village at the center of the net City, using three-lanes among three-lanes.

E was driving a car car with the same knife along the three-lanes of the same road.

B. The network A changed the three lanes from the three lanes to the two lanes, and E continued three lanes.

E, while proceeding three-lanes, passed by the Deceased’s Otoba, the front part of the part of the part of the deceased’s right hand and the part fencesd after the driver’s seat on the part of E’s Kannbba, and the Otoba of the deceased exceeded the road.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case")

The Deceased was injured due to the foregoing accident, and the Defendant concluded a comprehensive car insurance contract with E in respect to the foregoing car group, and paid KRW 12,184,060 to a medical institution.

The Deceased died on October 22, 2016 while the instant lawsuit was pending.

The Defendants, the inheritor of the deceased, succeeded to the status of the Deceased in the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the result of the video verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for demanding the counterclaim against the principal lawsuit;

A. The Plaintiff of this lawsuit asserts that there was no negligence on the part of E, who is the driver of the van, because the deceased was involved in shocking the Hand to the right side after changing the lane, and that the medical expenses of KRW 12,184,060 paid to the medical institution on behalf of the deceased did not have any legal cause, and thus, the deceased was seeking the return thereof.

B. The counterclaim Defendant neglected the duty of the Deceased to conduct the instant accident while examining the fact that E has completely changed the lane, which led to the occurrence of the instant accident. Thus, the Defendant is the inheritor of the Deceased.