A. At around 16:40 on October 19, 2013, B: (a) driven a DST5-car owned by his spouse C (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and was proceeding in the direction of Chungcheong waking from the direction of the river (e.g., the two-lane of the two-lane road going back to and from the F cafeteria located in Seosan City City at a speed of about 15km/h.; (b) at the time, the said road was under a situation where the driver of the instant vehicle was in need of a high level of duty of care due to the artificial wave to participate in the sporadled spoke, and thus, it was under a situation where a high level of duty of care is required to the driver of the instant vehicle, while neglecting the duty of care to the driver of the vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s right-hand side of the instant vehicle along the direction of proceeding with the front wheels of the instant vehicle, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, etc., e.g., taking about 10 weeks treatment.

(B) According to the above findings, the Defendant is an insurance company which has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Defendant is an insurance company which has entered into the instant automobile (based on recognition), without any dispute. The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred by the Plaintiff as the insurer of the instant vehicle, as the insurer of the instant vehicle, regardless of its duty of care to prevent the traffic accident by driving the instant vehicle at a safe speed and method, despite the fact that: (a) evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4-1, 2-4-1, 1-2, 3-1, 3-2, 1-3, 4, and 5-3, 4, and 5-2); and (b) The aforementioned facts of recognition are as follows: (b) the instant accident, which is a driver of the instant vehicle, caused the instant vehicle by negligence, regardless of its duty of care to prevent the traffic accident by driving it at a safe speed and method.

B. Limit of liability, however, in full view of the developments leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident and the current status of the road near the site of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was bound to walk to the road due to the old occupation and occupation of the road over India and the side of the instant accident.

Even if any, India.