1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s liability for damages arising from an accident described in the separate sheet against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) is 20,274.

1. The non-party B, at around 1:10 on February 16, 2013, operated a vehicle at the time of Gunsan, and shocked the front of a rocketing vehicle in the front of the D station located in Gunsan City, and caused the shocking of the vehicle in the front of the D station in the front of the D station in Gunsan, and due to the shocking of the above rocketing vehicle, the vehicle in the front of the vehicle in the front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the said accident (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the symptoms of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front, and the fact that the Plaintiff is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the vehicle driven by the vehicle in front of the vehicle in question, can be recognized by the dispute between the parties, or by the entire purport of entry and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 4, and 1.

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a)For the convenience of calculating lost earnings, in principle, a period of time shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1 shall be discarded;

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

1) On the date of occurrence of an accident: The rate of loss of labor ability: 24% (one-year market) of the date of occurrence of an accident: Provided, That the Defendant was hospitalized for about two months from February 6, 2013 to April 22, 2013 due to the instant accident (30% of the instant accident) 70% of the contribution of the king (30% of the contribution of the instant accident). In reflecting 70% of the contribution of the said king, the Defendant’s hospitalization is not reflected in the period of hospitalization, but reflected only thereafter (the part applying the rate of loss of labor ability).

This is because it is reasonable to view that the Defendant was hospitalized due to the instant accident, even if there was a king for the Defendant, it is not appropriate to reflect the degree of contribution in calculating the lost income for the period of hospitalization.