On October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) was Geumjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City on October 15, 2015.

On October 17, 2015, the Plaintiff established the liability for damages: (a) driving a FF vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) around 15:17, and driving the H road located in Seo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Area G into a university and driving from the underground street to the four-distance distance; (b) the Plaintiff changed the two-lane to the one-lane; (c) the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to properly examine the movement of the vehicle running on the one-lane, and caused an accident that contacted the Plaintiff’s right side of the IF vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) on the one-lane side of the Plaintiff’s left side (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(B) No. 1-2). Therefore, the Plaintiff is liable for damages suffered by the Defendants due to the instant accident.

Whether the Defendants claimed damages or not, on the ground that the accident in the instant case occurred, the Defendant C suffered damages of KRW 105,00 for purchase cost of an Ansan, on the ground that the accident in the instant case occurred. The Defendant C claimed that the damages of KRW 5,251,06 for the purchase cost of the safe-hand pelon, etc. were incurred due to the injury, such as the mouth of the right-hand pelon, and the damages of KRW 116,59,082 for the treatment period, due to the loss of labor capacity of KRW 116,59,082 for the treatment period, the damages of KRW 4,07,850 for the future treatment cost.

The defendants asserts that the accident of this case also caused mental damage.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants suffered no personal injury due to the instant accident, and sought confirmation therefrom.

The accident of this case is merely a minor contact accident to the extent that the difference between the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle is not damaged, and it is only a minor contact accident to the extent that it is not damaged. This is clearly known to the original and the defendant's motion picture.

In light of the overall circumstances, such as the attitude of the original Defendant after the accident (Evidence A 3, 4, and 8) and the attitude of the original Defendant, Defendant C’s awareness due to the foregoing accident in light of the empirical rule.