1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The counterclaim Defendant 26,508,528 won against the counterclaim and 5,000.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the respective entries and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 12 (including serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the arguments.

1) On May 7, 2012, at around 09:19, C operated D vehicles and proceeded in front of the building Daegu Dong-gu E, Daegu, and concealed the back part of the FF vehicle operated by the Lessee, which was stopped for signal atmosphere (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The counterclaim Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the foregoing vehicle operated by C.

(b) C operating a motor vehicle with the basis of liability has the duty of care to prevent accidents by accurately operating the steering gear and steering gear well.

Nevertheless, C neglected such duty of care and caused the instant accident by neglecting the vehicle of the Counterclaim Plaintiff due to the negligence in progress.

The counterclaim Defendant is the insurer of the foregoing vehicle, and is liable for the damages incurred by the counterclaim due to the instant accident.

2. Scope of liability for damages [based on recognition] Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 5 through 8, and 10 evidence, result of each physical entrustment to appraiser G of the court of first instance to the court, result of fact inquiry to the Nwon of this court, and purport of the whole pleadings.

A. Personal information No. 1) asserts that personal information No. H, female, and accident No. 48 years old and 6 months old at the time of the accident, income, and the Counterclaim Plaintiff on the end of the operation, as a private extracurricular teacher, have an average of KRW 2,971,00 per month at the time of the accident in this case.

According to the evidence Nos. 9 and 13, although the Lessee was deemed to have worked as a private extracurricular, the evidence alone is insufficient to recognize that the monthly income of the Lessee was KRW 2,971,00, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, it is true.