1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from November 25, 2015 to March 16, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C refers to the DNA vehicle at around 18:00 on November 12, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver of Seocho-gu, Seoul, who was in front of the front road, had the Plaintiff go beyond the Plaintiff by shocking the front part of the Defendant vehicle with the front part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) After the accident of this case, the Plaintiff complained of the pains of the part of the Plaintiff.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. 1) Personal AF2) The Plaintiff asserts that the lost income loss incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident is KRW 70,000,100.

However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had earned income while engaging in work at the time of the instant accident, which was 62 years and 6 months old at the time of the instant accident, even though it imposed an ordinary operating period, and otherwise, the Plaintiff did not have any other reason.

3) The Plaintiff asserts that active damages, such as medical expenses, medicine expenses, and transportation expenses, etc., such as hospital expenses, medicine expenses, and transportation expenses, already paid or to be paid in the future due to the instant accident. According to the evidence No. 1 of this case, the Defendant is recognized to have paid the Plaintiff KRW 6,00,000 as advance payment for damages. However, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff’s active property damages exceed KRW 6,00,000 ( regardless of the continuous statement of this Court), and there is no evidence to prove this.