1. B around 09:20 on August 2, 2013, 2013, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle C multi-user car is driven in front of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D Building.

1. On August 2, 2013, the basic facts revealed that ① (a) A driven the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle CDammy vehicle, and turn to the left at the intersection without signal lights, etc. in front of the Seoul Mapo-gu DD building, and caused an accident that caused the Defendant’s driver’s mispercing the front right part of the said vehicle with the front right part of the front right part of the vehicle without discovering the front right part of the Defendant’s driver’s mispercing the front right part of the said vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 17,670,070 to the hospital treatment expenses, etc. from October 1, 2013 to August 12, 2015, the Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the pleadings as indicated in subparagraphs A through 3.

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. (1) The Plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay damages to the Defendant due to the instant accident, and seeks confirmation of the existence of the obligation as the principal suit.

(2) In regard to the accident of this case, the Defendant could not engage in work for seven months due to various injuries, such as the injury of wood and hye part, damage to self-regulation, etc., and thus, the amount of actual income equivalent to KRW 13.5 million is reduced. Since there was property damage, such as additional medical expenses in addition to the future treatment expenses, etc. for the expenses incurred in the internal area and other hospital treatment expenses within the Ynish Hospital, the Defendant sought compensation of KRW 100 million, including the consolation money of KRW 3,038,00,000 (the partial claim, specific damage details and claim details are as stated in the attached Form) and damages for delay.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the statements in the evidence Nos. 6 through 10, namely, ① the instant accident is a relatively minor accident in which the front wheels of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front wheels of the Defendant Oralba, and ② as a result, the instant accident is a relatively insignificant accident.