1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 13:50 on September 22, 2003, Nonparty C, while driving a car (B) insured by the Plaintiff and driving in the vicinity of both documents in Gyeonggi-gu Yang-gun, the following was concealed from the back of the Aburged vehicle (D) during the signal atmosphere (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, Nonparty C suffered injury to the Defendant who was on board the said Aburged vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff, the insurer of the above car engine, is obligated to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant caused by the above accident.

C. As to the assertion of comparative negligence, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant should limit the Plaintiff’s liability on the ground that the Defendant was negligent in failing to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, but there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant did not wear the safety labelling, and the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit

2. In principle, the period of calculating the scope of compensation for damage shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 10 shall be discarded;

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

(1) Personal information: The defendant is a E-living and has the age of 46 years and 3 months at the time of the accident.

(2) Income: The Defendant, from the instant accident to May 7, 2012, was in office as an employee of the Election Commission from the date of dismissal to May 7, 2012, and thus, the income up to May 7, 2012, is recognized by dividing the annual salary as indicated in the wage and salary withholding receipt submitted by the Defendant by 12 months.

However, the defendant was dismissed on May 7, 2012 while he/she was in office as an employee of the Election Commission, and the defendant is not in relation to the traffic accident in this case before the closing of argument in the first instance.