1. On September 11, 201, the Plaintiff is at the outdoor parking lot at the Daejeon Seo-gu Daejeon, Daejeon-dong 33, Daejeon-dong on September 11, 201.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On September 11, 201, at around 13:33, the Plaintiff, while driving a slotton car in front of the Daejeon Sung-dong 33, Dong-dong, Daejeon, at the street, brought about a dispute with the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) while driving a motor vehicle in front of the Daejeon Seo-dong 33, the Plaintiff left the vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle that drives a Dives-to-car car; and (b) caused a dispute with the Defendant for this reason.

On the same day, the Plaintiff, while driving the above vehicle at around 13:45 on the same day, found the Defendant again, while finding a parking place in the outdoor parking lot at the Roart Daejeon store, found the Plaintiff vehicle at that time, found the Plaintiff vehicle to be a mobile phone, and caused any defect in photographing the Plaintiff’s number plate with the mobile phone, and caused the Defendant’s injury, such as damage to the front part of the Plaintiff’s front part of the vehicle, by taking the Defendant’s right knee part toward the Defendant as the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability and the Plaintiff’s assertion of comparative negligence, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages as a tortfeasor who caused the instant accident.

The plaintiff also asserted that he was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to protect himself by doing dangerous acts, such as blocking the passage of the plaintiff's vehicle and photographing pictures, but the defendant taken the number plate of the plaintiff's vehicle with the mobile phone.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted, since there is no evidence to support that the accident of this case was caused by the defendant, and there is no other evidence to support that the defendant contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability, each of the attached damages calculation table shall be applicable.