1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2013, around 15:50, the Plaintiff stopped the Plaintiff’s child F, G (hereinafter, Plaintiff, F, and G (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) to E-car owned by the Plaintiff before the D store located in Ansan-si, Ansan-si.

While the Defendant was driving his H car in front of the said Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Defendant caused a traffic accident that shocks the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the right-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The Defendant compensated the Plaintiff for damage on the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case caused damage to the part front of the left-hand edge of the plaintiff's vehicle, and that the plaintiff suffered injury such as the part of the plaintiff's vehicle, 5-6 light signboard escape certificate, etc. due to the side-hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle, F and G, and that the defendant should compensate the plaintiff for the medical expenses and the plaintiff's business losses, since the plaintiff suffered injury such as the base-hand side of the plaintiff's vehicle, 5-6 light signboard escape certificate, etc., F and G, respectively.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case did not cause damage to the plaintiff's front driver's vehicle and the plaintiff's injury caused by an extremely minor accident.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 8 (including paper numbers), namely, ① the instant accident occurred in the course of the Defendant’s driving on the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in order to park in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the distance of movement of the Defendant’s vehicle is less than the distance of movement, and it seems not to have been high, and ② the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the employees of the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the insurance company, while investigating the accident at the site of the instant accident.