1. On April 3, 2014, around 19:22, Yongsan-dong, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with respect to traffic accidents that occurred in the vicinity of community credit cooperatives.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff driven a C vehicle on April 19:22, 2015, and operated a charnel near the Seoul Yongsan-dong 2, Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul, operated a charnel near the community credit cooperative. At that time, the Defendant was also walking ahead of the same direction

B. The defendant reported to the police that the plaintiff escaped without taking measures to avoid a traffic accident that causes the defendant's right arms to the left side of the above vehicle.

【Reasons for Recognition: Each entry in Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Determination:

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff did not recognize that the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant met, and that the CCTV at the scene of the accident is uncertain even if the CCTV at the scene of the accident is not in contact with the plaintiff's vehicle and the defendant, but the defendant continuously demanded compensation, so the lawsuit in this case that there is no liability for compensation against the defendant.

As to this, the defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, the defendant suffered from the right edge of the plaintiff's vehicle, and the plaintiff suffered from the plaintiff's aftermath of the vehicle, and the plaintiff suffered from the plaintiff's aftermath of the vehicle. The same does not have any error, but the plaintiff is under continuous treatment due to the plaintiff's arms, legs, and lag's side, so the plaintiff should compensate the defendant for the damage suffered by the defendant.

B. Therefore, according to the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office (Seoul Southern District Prosecutors' Office), as a result of the CCTV reading installed in the Yongsan-gu Office on October 13, 2015, shows images that cause minor contact with the parts remaining after the plaintiff's vehicle and the part of the defendant's arms. However, even if the pains suffered from traffic accidents do not undergo medical treatment, it can be seen that the defendant was unable to issue a medical certificate from the outside of the dwelling place and the president around the dwelling place, and there was no medical treatment thereafter, and therefore, the defendant suffered injury due to traffic accidents in light of the fact that there was no other medical treatment.