1. The part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the first instance, including the claims expanded and reduced in this Court, is as follows:

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 09:15, April 26, 2013, D 1) G bargaining (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s left side of the Plaintiff, a child-care center teacher, who was trying to board a child, was in front of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and was injured by the Plaintiff, such as the 5th head head of the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while driving the E apartment Fdong in front of the front apartment in the front of the front city of the front city (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) On the day of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by 44 days before the date of the instant accident, she was diagnosed by flaparing the 5th left-hand edges, etc., and was hospitalized on June 8, 2013, but the part of the left-hand edges continued to have been tested by the Plaintiff. On June 25, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by flaparing it to an I hospital into the department of anesthesia anesthesia, and was diagnosed by flaparation I. On November 18, 2013, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by flaparing it into the department of anesthesia anesthesia, and continued to undergo treatment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff was diagnosed by flaparation 1, 2014 on July 7, 2014.

3) While the Plaintiff received permanent insertion from a large number of fingers, and continuously reduced pains through physical rehabilitation treatment and pharmacologic treatment at Seoul National University Hospital, I Hospital, and I Hospital, the Plaintiff has continuously been subject to reduction of pains, the Plaintiff has not yet been able to appeal to a double class of 5 visual pains from 5 to 0 (no pain) to 10 (no pain). In addition, the Plaintiff has been subject to a double class of 0 to 10 (no painless pains), and the Plaintiff has been demoted on the left side, and the strength has been reduced to 10% of the normal sense of view, and the Plaintiff has been obstructed by walking. The Plaintiff was the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with D with the Defendant with respect to the Defendant.