The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

At around 12:50 on September 21, 2013, B, such as the occurrence of an accident, driven by C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and stopped on the front of the North Korean bank in the front of the front of the North Korean bank in the front of the Yansan-gu Peacedong 1 of the front of the North Korean bank in the front of the front of the front of the front of the vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) and the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the vehicle of the Defendant (hereinafter referred to as “the front of the Plaintiff vehicle”) and shocked the front of the front of the

(A) Evidence Nos. 1, 6-1, 2, and 6-2 of the above accident (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

Plaintiff’s assertion

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the Plaintiff’s 14 ambags, etc., the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 11,909,180, consolation money, KRW 5,000 for daily actual income, KRW 48,572,545, KRW 13,590,00 for medical treatment expenses, and KRW 11,909,00 for future medical treatment expenses, KRW 5,00,00 for consolation money.

Judgment

If the accident of this case, as alleged by the Plaintiff, more than 20 children need to be treated, the face was considerably shocked due to the accident, and immediately after the accident, it would be common to appeal for the pains on the occupancy level or the infant.

However, the instant accident appears to have been occurred during the process of stopping and departing from the Defendant’s vehicle, and it seems that the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle was very slow, and the shock form also contacted with rhythm. In fact, the degree of damage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident is minor.

(No. 6-1, 2, and 3 of the witness No. 6-2, and the Plaintiff was wearing the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.

(4) Therefore, there is a question as to whether the Plaintiff was shocked to sustain injury as alleged in the instant accident.

The plaintiff also refers to the physical damage of the defendant vehicle operator at the accident site.