1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to B Poter Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On March 29, 2016, around 14:54, at the time of Sejong City, the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked on the road front of the E-cafeteria located in D, and turned back to the left-hand side, and the Defendant’s left tamp, which was located on the right-hand side of the course, was shocked.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On March 30, 2016, the day following the date of the instant accident, the Defendant filed an appeal for the pain of the left-hand department by finding the F Unauthorized Foreign Department and a member of the Council, and was diagnosed by F to require approximately three weeks of medical treatment on the left-hand ledger and the left-hand ledger.

On March 31, 2016, the following day, the Defendant was hospitalized in F fixed outdoor department, and received drug and physical therapy for about two weeks under the above diagnosis name.

After the discharge, the Defendant received medical treatment under the diagnosis of the confection, the base and tension of the F-type and G-type in the F-type and G-type Council members from April 19, 2016 to November 7, 2016.

E. The Plaintiff paid KRW 1,632,020 to the Defendant’s medical expenses in the FIE, etc.

F. Upon the Plaintiff’s application, the chief of the Sejong Police Station requested the National Scientific Investigation Institute to appraise the Defendant’s injury caused by the instant accident, and thus, the National Scientific Investigation Institute, as a result of the Mado analysis, made an appraisal to the effect that the Defendant was not injured due to the instant accident as a result of the collision interpretation program.

G. Meanwhile, the driver C of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was subject to a non-prosecution disposition that did not have the right of prosecution on the grounds that it subscribed to comprehensive insurance on the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Evidence No. 1-1, 2, Eul No. 2 and 3, and the purport of the body before oral argument]

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred in light of the evaluation results of the Mydi program of the National Science Investigation Institute.