beta
Text
1. On March 6, 2017, around 21:20, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s driving D and Defendant’s driving on the front of Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government roads.
Reasons
1. On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff driven D vehicles (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicles”) around 21:20, and stopped for the cross-section signal at the two-lanes in front of Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu, Seoul, for the purpose of cross-section signal, at the two-lane, the two-lanes of the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. As a result, the front part of the Defendant’s E-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) which was parked behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.
(hereinafter “instant accident”). On March 7, 2017, the Defendant was diagnosed by the Franchisium with “Woman’s salt, tensions, and tensions”.
The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. From April 13, 2017 to June 30, 2017, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor paid KRW 1,158,370 as insurance money to the Franwon’s Medical Fees.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4, 8, Eul evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff asserted that the shock of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the time of the instant accident, was extremely minor and did not cause injury to the Defendant, and that the injury suffered by the Defendant was caused by the principal’s disease, and thus, the Plaintiff did not bear the obligation to pay damages due to the instant accident, and sought confirmation of the existence of the obligation.
In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred with the injury of the light chill, tension, etc., and that the amount of damages therefrom is 14,982,80 won (=2,232,800 won from daily income and other damage 250,000 won (2,50,000 won for consolation money) and sought payment of damages and damages for delay as a counterclaim.
3. We examine the principal lawsuit and counterclaim together.
A. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 2 and 6 as well as the entire purport of video and pleading, the Plaintiff caused the instant accident.