The Defendant’s KRW 4,248,33 of the Plaintiff and its 5% per annum from December 8, 2016 to December 18, 2020.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact-finding 1) C is a D Motor Vehicle around 16:15 on December 8, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant Motor Vehicle”).

) A motor vehicle E (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) operated by the plaintiff who has driven a vehicle and driven a four-lane of the five-lanes of the 67-ro 23-lane in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan City into the Gu road from the Gu road basin to the Do road basin from the Gu road basin to the Do road basin.

2) The instant accident was shocked (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff sustained an injury as a result of the instant accident, i.e., the Plaintiff sustained the injury of a sacriff.

3) The Defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle (the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, the entry of Gap’s 1 through 5, Eul’s 7 and 8, the result of the commission of physical appraisal to the F Hospital Head of this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident.

2. The Plaintiff’s damage liability scope is as follows:

In the instant case, the Plaintiff was hospitalized from December 8, 2016 to January 25, 2017 due to the instant accident, and the fact that the daily income was 2,248,333 does not dispute the Defendant. As such, the said KRW 2,248,333 is recognized as the daily income.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff’s loss of labor ability by 30% from January 26, 2017 to December 8, 2017, which was after the aforementioned hospitalization period due to stress disorder caused by the accident in the instant case, and sought payment of the said money by asserting that the lost income was KRW 7,240,815, and thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lost the labor ability by itself as 30% during the said period, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the claim is rejected.

B. The Plaintiff’s recognition of traffic expenses is an accident in this case.