The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 25,028,597 as well as 5% per annum from November 15, 2014 to April 21, 2017.

On November 15, 2014, at around 19:10 on November 15, 2014, B recognized the liability for damages, driving C Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) and driving it, and driving it around D in order to park the Defendant vehicle in front of E in front of E in front of the former So-jin-gu, the Plaintiff, who was walking in front of E, was forced to walk the Defendant vehicle in front of E.

(A) Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

(A) According to the fact that the establishment of liability is recognized above, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

And there seems to be no reason to limit the defendant's liability.

In addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages, it shall be as specified in the attached Table of the calculation of damages.

The plaintiff asserts that the lost income amount of KRW 7,739,543 is a loss of lost income based on daily work.

However, it is reasonable to view that a person engaged in daily work can work until he reaches the age of 60 in light of the empirical rule (Supreme Court Decision 91Da29095 Decided February 11, 1992). Since the Plaintiff was at the time of the instant accident and was at the age of 65 years and 11 months, and was not engaged in work at the time of the instant accident, it is difficult to find that the Plaintiff suffered actual income damage.

The Plaintiff, who was the date of the instant accident, claimed the damages of 6,532,782 won from November 15, 2014 to January 13, 2015, and from January 26, 2015 to February 9, 2016.

Due to the aftermath disability of the victim caused by the accident, the opening of the victim was required.

Even in order to claim the opening costs until the closing of the trial court proceedings, the opening costs was actually received and disbursed, or the opening costs was not actually disbursed.

At least the parents of the victim;