1. On September 26, 2018, around 18:16, in relation to traffic accidents that occurred at the Seongdong-gu Seoul apartment parking lot.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. On September 26, 2018, when the Plaintiff changed the direction for parking D vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) at the Seongdong-gu Seoul Seongdong-gu Seoul apartment parking lot on September 26, 2018, the fact that the Plaintiff had contacted the front part of the E vehicle that the Plaintiff was waiting for parking with the front wheels part of the vehicle and was waiting for parking (hereinafter “instant accident”) without dispute between the parties, or that the entire purport of the oral argument is recognized by taking account of the following: (a) the statement of evidence No. 1; and (b) the video of evidence No. 2.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is minor and the medical expenses for the background and the drilling claimed by the defendant as the damage therefrom are not acknowledged as a causal relationship with the accident of this case, and the defendant is not liable for damages due to the accident of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant paid KRW 626,632 for the treatment of the background and the prosecution in the instant accident, and suffered mental suffering, and sought payment of KRW 626,632 and KRW 1 million for the plaintiff as well as KRW 1,626,632.

3. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the existence of liability for damages, the Plaintiff breached his duty to avoid the accident by well examining the post-inspection for parking, and such mistake was the cause of the instant accident.

However, in light of the facts seen earlier and the circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, such as the fact that the shock according to the instant accident appears to have been significantly insignificant, it is difficult to recognize that the instant accident was caused, and there is no other evidence to prove the causal relationship.

In addition, since the defendant is not recognized to have suffered from injury due to the accident of this case, it cannot be said that the defendant suffered from mental suffering due to the accident of this case is obvious in light of the empirical rule.