1. From September 6, 2014 to October 14, 2015, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) paid KRW 115,940 to the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and against this.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, around 15:35 on June 28, 2013, driven a C Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and transferred the front way of the C Vehicle D in Young-gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, to the long-term floodproof of the purchase carbon market.

B. At the time, the Defendant, who was towing the bicycle at the crosswalk in the direction of the Plaintiff’s driving, argued that the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked by the Defendant, and that B reported to 112, and the Defendant was transferred to the hospital on board the 119 ambulances.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

As an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract regarding the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 3,384,060 for medical expenses.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 8 (including each number, if any), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s assertion (which caused the Plaintiff’s claim) had no contact with the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to return KRW 3,384,060 of the insurance money received from the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s assertion (citing a counterclaim) took part in the Defendant’s left development, etc., which the Plaintiff’s vehicle was towing the bicycle at the right edge of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and suffered injury to the Plaintiff, such as the left-hand salt, the knive base, and the tension in need of two weeks’ medical treatment. As such, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate for damages incurred therefrom (12,604,237 won in daily income and consolation money and KRW 87,395,73 won).

3. Determination

A. First of all, the Plaintiff’s liability for damages is insufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s damages caused by the Defendant’s injury, such as the left-hand leg, chloat, chloat, tension, etc., on the left-hand leg, which requires two weeks’ treatment, by focusing on the Defendant’s left-hand gate with the front wheels, and the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 are insufficient to recognize it.