1. Regarding the accident described in the attached list, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. On August 2, 201, at around 09:00, Nonparty C driven D-si (hereinafter “instant taxi”) in the vicinity of the Youngdong-dong Intersection, Seongdong-gu, Seoul. The fact that the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s Oba in the front part of the Defendant’s Oba in the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the back of the said back of the back of the back of the said back of the back of the back of the said part of the accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury from the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the back of the back of the back of the back of the said case (hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff, who was a mutual aid project operator, concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to the instant taxi;

2. The plaintiff's assertion of the parties does not exist in excess of 15,329,360 won for the defendant's medical expenses already incurred by the plaintiff.

claim and seek confirmation thereof.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff should pay the damages of KRW 49,982,819 for the damages of the lost loss caused by the instant accident, KRW 37,95,199, KRW 1,013,810, KRW 10,000, KRW 49,982, and KRW 819.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the occurrence of liability for damages and the limitation thereof, the Plaintiff, a mutual aid business entity, is liable for damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident, barring any special circumstances, since the Defendant was injured by the operation of the instant taxi.

However, even though the defendant had a duty to maintain a reasonable safety distance with the taxi of this case prior to the defendant, the circumstances surrounding the accident of this case or various circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case, including the fact that the defendant violated the duty to prevent the accident.