1. The part concerning the claim for medical expenses of KRW 1,314,080 among the instant lawsuits shall be dismissed.

2. The Defendant’s KRW 31,005,878 and the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On June 26, 2011:50 on June 26, 2014, the name-disqualifiedist (1) was the name-disqualifiedist C Truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on the two-lanes of the expressway between Pyeongtaek-si and Pyeongtaek-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(i)A car E in D Driving (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) which had already been operated in three lanes while driving a vehicle while neglecting the duty of the front week and changing the lane into a three-lane;

2) The rear part of the accident was received (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff (FF male) who was the father of D, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injuries, such as cage cages, and gym crym crym brym cryms.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the amount of compensation should be reduced since the instant accident occurred because D, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, failed to drive the concession and defensive driving even though the Defendant instructed the driver of the Defendant vehicle to take direction. There is no evidence to support the direction of the driver, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, or the negligence of the duty of care. Therefore, the Defendant’s argument is without merit. 2) The Defendant asserts that the amount of compensation should be reduced since the Plaintiff did not wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident.

The plaintiff's use of the safety belt is not sufficient to recognize the plaintiff's use with only the descriptions and images of evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul's evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2...