1. All appeals filed by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) against the instant principal lawsuit and counterclaim are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be the principal lawsuit.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: (a) the court of first instance added the judgment on the Defendant’s argument in the trial; and (b) pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the deletion of “the result of each order to submit medical records to the President of the Han River University, the President of the Han River University, the President of the Han River University, and the President of the Seocheon National University,” among the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance, the following:

2. Judgment on the defendant's argument at the trial court

A. If the defendant's alleged motor vehicle accident occurs, it is reasonable in light of the empirical rule to inflict an injury from the defendant. Therefore, as long as the existence of an accident and an injury is proved, the causal relationship is proved, and the plaintiff must prove the special circumstances denying the causal relationship.

The accident of this case is obvious that the front qui of the motor vehicle had a shocked to the defendant, and the defendant who suffered from various diseases for several years was vulnerable to shock, and the causal relationship is affirmed by coincide with the body appraisal institution of the first instance trial against the defendant. Thus, it is obvious that there is a causal relationship between the accident of this case and the injury of this case.

However, the judgment of the court of first instance that did not fully contribute to the accident of this case because of the fact that there was a king certificate and the contribution of this case is unfair.

B. The judgment of the victim of a traffic accident has contributed to the occurrence of the victim's occurrence of a specific injury or the prolongedization of the treatment period, or the expansion of the subsequent disability after the treatment as a result of the aggravation of the victim's occurrence of a specific injury in competition with the accident, it is reasonable in terms of the fair burden of damage to bear the amount of compensation corresponding to the victim's total damages, depending on the degree recognized as having contributed to the occurrence of the result of the whole injury including the specific injury (see Supreme Court Decision 9Da68577, May 12, 200).