1. As to the traffic accident stated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The following facts are found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 7, 9, Eul evidence of No. 1, 11, and 15 (including evidence with serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply):

A. Around 09:30 on October 26, 2012, the network B (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) was involved in an accident involving the left side-hand side on the front of the F G convenience store located in Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Dong-gu, Yandong-gu (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-gu”) with the top-hand side of the I multi-user vehicle driven by H (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-gu”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

In the instant accident, the deceased suffered from the injury of the left-hand leged parts (the 2, 3rd ridges) and salted parts of the left-hand leged parts of the instant accident, both sides, salted parts of the shouldered parts, and the luxedsium, etc., and transferred to Seoul National University Hospital, upon receipt of suspicion of suspicion about the left-hand leged parts and the luxal flusium related to the outbreak of the instant accident, among October 26, 2012 through December 25, 2012.

C. Around January 18, 2013, the Deceased Hospital was finally diagnosed in the Complex Madropulmonary Madro-Madrode (CRPS) type I, and thereafter, the Deceased constantly complained of serious pains on the left-hand side even though he was continuously treated as an anti-scopic lavary, an anti-scopic, an anti-scopic, an anti-scopic, an anti-scopic, an anti-scopic, and an injectingcopic injection. In addition, symptoms, such as depression, an anti-scopic, suicide, and respiratory difficulties, such symptoms appeared to have been preserved for pain, and was killed for excessive recovery on October 28, 2019 when the instant lawsuit was pending.

The Defendants, the parents of the deceased, inherited the deceased’s property and received a lawsuit, and the Plaintiff is an insurer who concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The fact of recognition of the liability for damages and the statement in the evidence Nos. 19 to 22, 24 to 26, and the Ma Hospital Head of this Court.