1. On September 12, 2016, around 17:23, 2016, the driving of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) at the front of E Licensed Real Estate Agent (Counterclaim Defendant) located in Seoul D.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On September 12, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) around 17:23, Sept. 12, 2016, the Plaintiff is a passenger car with a four-distance intersection in front of the E Licensed Real Estate Agents in Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-Japan vehicle”).

) When the Defendant’s private taxi driver, who was directly located on the left-hand side from the right-hand side of the horse in the course of the 4th room of the JP center, was collisioned with the front part of the vehicle’s right-hand part, and caused the Defendant to suffer injury, such as conical signboards escape, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff’s Intervenor is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a sea-going vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 6, 9, 11 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability and the above-mentioned recognition, the plaintiff is liable for damages sustained by the defendant due to the accident in this case as the driver of a sea-going vehicle.

However, the defendant committed an error in the course of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue while passing through the intersection or not looking at the movement of another vehicle to enter the intersection at the same time, and such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the accident at issue and the expansion of damages. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the defendant's fault ratio is 30% in light of all the circumstances, such as the type of the accident at issue, the progress of both vehicles, and the collision. Accordingly, the plaintiff's responsibility is limited to 70%.

2. In light of the cost, the Defendant’s fault ratio, the king evidence, and the medical expenses paid by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the insurance payment liability based on the instant accident did not exceed KRW 910,00,00, and sought confirmation of the non-existence of the obligation.

On the contrary, the Defendant’s damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident are 37,271.