1. The obligation of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) due to an accident described in the attached list is as follows.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed to be filed together.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 21, 2014, at around 11:00 on October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff driven the C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and, while straightening from the shooting distance of the Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon, the part concerning the back-down part of the Defendant’s D Driving Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) under the signal atmosphere was shocked with the front-down part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. From October 24, 2014 to October 30, 2014 after the instant accident, the Defendant was hospitalized in the Embryptian department, and received treatment for sacratitis and sacratitis.

C. The Plaintiff vehicle insurance company paid KRW 53,872,00,000 as repair cost, as damages caused by the damage of the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1, Eul evidence 1, 2-2, Eul evidence 1, 3, 11, 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that there is no liability to compensate for damages because the shock caused by the accident of this case is insignificant and the defendant cannot sustain a bodily injury. Thus, the defendant did not have a significant shock caused by the accident of this case, and the defendant was hospitalized by suffering a bodily injury, and accordingly, the plaintiff is obliged to pay medical expenses, daily income, consolation money, etc. to the defendant.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged in light of the above fact finding that the above fact finding liability for damages occurred, Eul evidence Nos. 11 and 12 (including paper numbers) and the fact inquiry results with respect to the E-mail beyond the E-mail of this court, are comprehensively considered as a whole the purport of the argument, namely, the backer of the defendant vehicle, which is the following circumstances: the damage caused by the accident of this case is caused by flag, and the damage caused by flag is not clearly distinguishable from the photo, but is likely to have a shock to the backer of the defendant vehicle to the extent that the contents of the name plate of the plaintiff vehicle can be stamped. The defendant