1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and incidental appeals filed by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) are dismissed.

2. Appeal and.

1. Determination on the main claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the arguments, the Defendant, at around 19:50 on Nov. 28, 2016, driven a vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and parked at the edge of the Central Resident Center, 264-ro 1, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Sungnam-gu, Sungnam-gu, in front of the Central Resident Center, in the front direction of the Plaintiff’s D vehicle parked at the front direction of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and caused the Defendant’s driver’s shockion (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, it can be acknowledged that the Plaintiff aboard the Plaintiff vehicle suffered injury, such as cind and tension, in need of approximately two weeks of treatment.

According to the above facts, since the defendant parked at the edge of side-road, it is reasonable to view that the accident of this case occurred by neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident in advance, even though he had a duty of care to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the front side and the left side and the left side and the steering gear, etc.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

B. In full view of the purport of each statement and argument as to evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff was unable to obtain income for 10 days due to the instant accident (i.e., urban daily wage of April 4, 2016 x 10 days x 10%). On the other hand, in calculating the lost income, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s occupational wage of 164,864 won or the Plaintiff’s average wage of 205,416 won (i.e., wages of 2,465,00 in total wages of 2016 ± total number of working days ± total number of days 12 days). However, the Plaintiff’s occupational proof Nos. 6, 8, 47, and 7 of this case was the Plaintiff’s occupational proof at the time of the instant accident.

on 205 the date of revenue of the plaintiff or the plaintiff.