A. On April 12, 2017, at around 19:10, Nonparty C operated a E-car (hereinafter “instant car”) in the vicinity of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, and entered the intersection and returned to the intersection after the signal change within the intersection. The fact that there was an accident in which Nonparty C contacted the front part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s driving, who is driving in accordance with the proceeding signal from the front part of the right side and the right side to the left side, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered an accident in contact with the front part of the F.O., the left side (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the fact that the Defendant is an insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant car does not conflict between the parties, or that the Defendant is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as indicated in subparagraphs 1 and 2, and No. B’s evidence No. 2-1 through 3.

B. According to the above facts of recognition of the responsibility, C, while waiting or leaving the intersection without entering the intersection by examining the situation of the body of the vehicle at the intersection, has already been changed, was negligent in failing to perform the duty of care to prevent the accident from spreading in the direction of the right side by properly examining the existence of the vehicle driving in accordance with the proceeding signal, and such error was caused by the accident and damage in this case.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer for the automobile of this case, is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

(c) limitation of liability, provided, however, that the Plaintiff is also in a situation where the vehicle at the intersection that is located in the front bank at the time, and if necessary, it is insufficient to perform the duty to prevent the accident by stopping or avoiding it properly.