A. The fact of recognition 1) C is a DNA car around January 11, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 03:28, 2015.

() While driving F in Songpa-gu Seoul and making a left turn to the left in accordance with the alleyway that is not straighted in the direction of G convenience points from the direction of the Mcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff, who was walking ahead of F clothes, was shocked from the G convenience point to the front part of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a bruptive blood from the external bruptive body in which two open addresses are located, a blood from the two openings, and a bruptive body of the two openings, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 17 evidence, Eul 2-8 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the place where the instant accident occurred is a side road around a commercial building without any distinction between the Do newsletter and the roadway; (b) the Plaintiff, while paying attention to the vehicle’s proceeding, neglected to see the front left, and neglected to see the cell phones, thereby recognizing the fault between the two; and (c) such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages; and therefore, (d) the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by taking account of this, the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 80%.

Although the Defendant asserts to the effect that since the Plaintiff neglected to provide medical treatment and the Plaintiff’s damage was increased, it should be taken into account as a ground for limiting liability, in light of the details of each treatment provided by the evidence Nos. 20, 21, and 22 and the fact that the Plaintiff suffered from obstacles to the dispersion and impulse adjustment due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s refusal to conduct an additional inspection and discharge from the hospital.

(1) the Corporation;