beta
Text
1. On March 13, 2018, around 17:50 on March 13, 2018, to the Plaintiff’s Defendant, point 17.4 km of the Incheon Gyeyang-gu Police Team.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a company running taxi transportation business, which is the owner of the E vehicle.
B. At around 17:50 on March 13, 2018, G driven a vehicle, and driven the front part of the Defendant’s driver’s F vehicle running ahead of the 17.4km of the Highway, which is the Seo-gu Incheon Gyeyang-gu Incheon, for a day-to-day direction from Seoul to a day-to-day direction. On March 13, 2018, G driven the front part of the front part of the 2nd part.
(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap 1, 3 through 6, 8, Eul 1, 2 and 16, or the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.
2. Assertion and determination
A. The gist of the party’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s instant accident is insignificant and thus cannot destroy a vehicle or incur injury to the driver. Therefore, there is no liability for damages arising from the instant accident against the Defendant. 2) Whether the Defendant is a minor accident is different depending on an individual.
Because of the instant accident, the Defendant received treatment as “satisfe base and tension” from March 15, 2018 to April 10, 2018, and received treatment and surgery as “satisfe signboard disability (pact disc)” around June 2018.
B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 1) 3 through 18, the Defendant received treatment from “K Hospital” from March 15, 2018 to April 10, 2018 as “h, satise base and tension”; on June 6, 2018, the Defendant received emergency treatment from “I Hospital”; from June 7, 2018 to June 12, 2018, he/she received treatment as “hnephe signboards accompanied by nephal ppuri disease”; from June 13, 2018 to June 15, 2018, the Defendant received treatment at “K Hospital” and, based on the comprehensive statement of “hume and tension” from “La Hospital” to “hume and tension; from June 18, 2018, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant received the same purport as the Defendant’s oral argument or video evidence No. 271.71.