A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a C K9 car driven by B (hereinafter “accident vehicle”).

(B) On January 12, 2016, the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the insurance period, including the following time and date of the accident. (3) B was driving an accident vehicle under the influence of alcohol at around 02:00 on January 12, 2016, and was proceeding at a speed of about 30 km/h/h of speed on the west-gu, Daejeon-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, at a speed of at least 1286 speed, on the road, on which no other vehicle is set off.

3) At that time B served the Plaintiff’s head head head, which was used on the road on the off of the sea, with the front wheels on the left side of the vehicle involved in the accident, but did not properly recognize the fact that the Plaintiff met and went off without being aware of the fact that he served the person (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(4) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the vertebranes dye dye dye dye, frye dye dye dye, etc., due to the instant accident, and received hospitalized treatment at the D Specialized Rehabilitation Hospital until May 6, 2017.

[Reasons for Recognition] A1-1 Evidence to A13-4 Evidence, Nos. 1-1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition that the liability for damages or the liability for payment of insurance money occurred, B is judged to have caused the accident of this case by negligence due to negligence in the Jeonju-si under the circumstance of reliance, and thus, B is liable for compensating the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident of this case, and the defendant, who is the insurer

2. On the other hand, negligence set-off or liability is limited, and according to the evidence above, the plaintiff was used in the lane at the night. Since the plaintiff's error contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage, it shall be considered by the plaintiff's negligence. However, considering the contents and degree of the violation of the duty of care by the plaintiff and the B, the time and place of the accident of this case, and the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as road environment.