1. On August 4, 2017, around 10:54 on August 4, 2017, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) at the front of the Seocho-gu Seoul Western Central District of Seocho-gu, Seoul Central District of 96.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On August 4, 2017, at around 10:54, 2017, D, the driver of the Plaintiff, who was the Plaintiff’s driver, carried the vehicle owned by the Plaintiff at the three-lane of the fourth-lane of the intersection of the Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho-gu Seoul Seocho Central Intersection 96 Seoul, into the alternates of the shift distance from the front side of the Seoul Intersection. When the Defendant’s driver, who was in the second-lane of the road in the Seoul Intersection of the Seoul Intersection, was shocked with the front side of the vehicle’s vehicle C, which was directly located on the second-lane of the road in the Seoul Intersection of the Seoul Intersection, with the left side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant suffered an injury, such as a trend requiring approximately two weeks of treatment, the base line of the Ancheon river, and the tension.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident as the owner of the AJ car.

The plaintiff asserts that since the accident of this case occurred while the defendant did not perform his duty of concession driving with respect to the vehicle under consideration even though he did not perform his duty of concession driving, the defendant's negligence should be taken into account. However, although the statement and video of the evidence Nos. 1 to 7 are the above obligation of concession driving to the defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff neglected it or neglected it.

2. The plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay damages based on the accident of this case, considering the circumstances of the accident of this case and the result of damage as the principal lawsuit.

On the contrary, the defendant asserts that the amount of damages suffered by the defendant was KRW 1,499,230 due to the accident of this case and sought the payment of such amount as a counterclaim.

3. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Expenses for automobile repair: 325,050 won (certificate No. 1);

(b) Medical expenses: 82,480 Won No. 2.