A. The occurrence of the instant accident and the Defendant’s criminal punishment (i) around 22:15 on October 201, 2013, the Plaintiff entered the 8-lane road from Jongno-gu Seoul, Jongno-gu, Seoul, in front of the exit area No. 9 to the front of the exit area at C, 9 as the front of the exit area, thereby blocking the two-lane opposite to each other beyond the median line.

She around that time, the Defendant driven the Defendant’s Otoba (hereinafter “Defendant”) and found the Plaintiff late and shocked the Plaintiff on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle while approaching the two-lanes to the Plaintiff as above.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the upper part of the right upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part, the second part of the right, and the upper part of the part of the right satisfaction, which requires approximately twelve weeks of medical treatment in the above accident.

Applicant there was a underground report that can cross at a place less than 60 meters away from the place of the accident in this case, and around the accident site, the area around the accident site was a large area where pedestrians have to secure the view or on the road because commercial buildings are concentrated.

(v) The defendant was convicted of a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and sentenced to suspended sentence of imprisonment without prison labor (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da7417) due to occupational negligence in the course of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and the above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

B. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s status and experience (i.e., the Plaintiff Company D) was established around August 16, 2001 for the purpose of management consulting business (Capital 400,000,000, total number of issued and outstanding shares 80,000), and the Plaintiff’s wife E, among five shareholders, has over 68.75% of the total number of issued and outstanding shares.

The plaintiff worked in a securities company from January 10, 2002, and maintained the status of directors since he was appointed as a registration director of the registration office of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd., and thereafter the plaintiff has exercised the right of representation for a certain period of time. The plaintiff is the representative of the Dispute Resolution Co., Ltd. at present.

[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute;