A. On January 10, 2014, C driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 18:30 on January 10, 2014, and followed the center line on the right side of the E driver’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) that was driven by the Defendant’s vehicle in the front right part of the front right part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) while he driven the national road No. 56 in front of the 295 Jeoncheon-gun, Hongcheon-gun, Seopo-do, the Hancheon-gun-ro, Hongcheon-gun, Seopo-do, in front of the 295 Jeonpo-ro, in front of the westpo-ro.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff, who was aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, sustained injuries, such as the so-called “epication of emissions” No. 1.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9 (each number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

C. As to the limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s driver, driving at a speed of 80km per hour exceeding the speed of the road of the accident (60km per hour) and that as long as the Plaintiff took advantage of the operational profit of the Plaintiff by driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the Plaintiff’s negligence should be taken into account at least 20% of the Plaintiff’s fault by viewing the Plaintiff’s negligence as the Plaintiff’s negligence as long as the Plaintiff took advantage of the operational profit of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. However, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident was driven in excess of the limited speed, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle operated in compliance with the restricted speed, it is evident that the Defendant’s vehicle did not avoid the instant accident caused by the Defendant’s collision with the center line. Therefore, it is between