1. With respect to traffic accidents listed in the Attachment 1, time-limit for the insurance contract listed in the Attached List 2.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B is a C low-priced vehicle owned by Hyundai Capital Capital Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) around 15:10 on May 11, 2013.

(ii) Estysta taxi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) entering the intersection in the direction of the front direction of the Plaintiff vehicle at the direction of the front direction of the front direction of the front direction of the vehicle in contravention of the stop signal of the front direction, while driving in the direction of the front direction of the Plaintiff vehicle and driving in the direction of the front direction of the road in violation of the stop signal of the front direction.

) The traffic accidents listed in the annexed Table 1, which conflict with the back part of the one (hereinafter referred to as “instant accidents”).

2) The Defendant, who was on the top of the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident, was suffering from the injury, such as a horse, a shoulder, a tension, and an abruption.

3) The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with Hyundai Capital Co., Ltd., listed in the attached Table 2 with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9, Eul evidence 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

B. According to the above facts of recognition 1, the plaintiff is liable to compensate the defendant for damages caused by the accident of this case. 2) The plaintiff asserts that since the defendant did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case and caused or expanded the above damages, the defendant's negligence should be considered in calculating damages. However, since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that lost income 1 left the left-hand autopsy due to the instant accident. This led to the Defendant’s assertion.