1. With respect to an accident described in paragraph 1 of the attached list, the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay insurance money to the Defendant is KRW 12,490,429 and KRW 12,429.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract, such as the attached Table No. 2, with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B and Crdler (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

B. On March 24, 2012, around 16:28, 2012, B, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and neglecting the duty of front direction direction direction while on the right side to enter the road at the E-cafeteria parking lot located in Gwangjin-si, B, due to the negligence of neglecting the duty of front direction direction direction direction, the Defendant’s front direction direction of the G Vehicle of the Defendant’s G Driving who is proceeding one lane immediately after the internship in the FF distance, was shocked by the Plaintiff’s driver.

(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Defendant suffered injury, such as “the impairment of the conical sponse base, the 4-5 conical sponsor,” etc. due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1

2. The parties' assertion and burden of proof;

A. While recognizing the Plaintiff’s liability for damages against the Defendant, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no liability to compensate for damages exceeding KRW 8,370,60,607 (i.e., KRW 1,765,797 for lost profit of KRW 1,765,150 for the period of hospitalization of KRW 1,184,00 for transport expenses of KRW 1,065,660 for KRW 1,47,687 for the medical expenses already paid by the Plaintiff, which had no causal relationship with the instant accident, or the amount calculated by deducting KRW 4,47,687 for the Defendant’s negligence, from KRW 3,922,920 for the damages incurred by the instant accident, and that the Defendant shall be paid KRW 13,897,700 for property damage of KRW 10,000 for the damages incurred by the instant accident from the Plaintiff.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims first and denies the facts constituting the cause of the obligation, the defendant, as the creditor, is liable to prove the facts constituting the elements of the legal relationship (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 97Da45259, Mar. 13, 1998; 2007Da6772, May 31, 2007). According to the above facts acknowledged, the plaintiff's vehicle is the plaintiff's vehicle.