2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The Defendant, who is the insurer of the instant vehicle, is liable for compensating for damages caused by the instant accident, since E breached its duty of care in front of the week.

B. The deceased, in the situation of rain after sunset, is located near the center of the road other than the crosswalk, and the accident of this case occurred. Since such negligence of the deceased was also caused by the accident, the defendant's liability is limited to 70% in consideration of this.

C. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the deceased suffered bodily injury, such as cage cage fages, external blood strekes, and streke, due to the instant accident, and not brain side. On January 208, 2008, prior to the accident, there had already been strekes of brain species, cerebral cerebrovassis, and cerebrovassis, and was suffering from dementia in the old age. Accordingly, the deceased’s death is irrelevant to the instant accident. Even if the deceased’s death was caused by the instant accident, the degree of contribution to the instant accident is less than 10%. 2) The judgment was based on the entrustment of physical examination to the head of the first instance hospital and the results of fact inquiry, and the overall purport of the argument as to the result of the request for medical record appraisal to the head of the PAssociation of this court, the following circumstances are acknowledged.

(1) On January 9, 2008, the Deceased, before the instant accident, discovered brain species, cerebral cerebral typhism, and cerebral typhal typhism in the brain image examination.

Because of such a king, there was a certain degree of trouble in pedestrian urology, but there was no big difficulty in carrying out daily life.

Shebly, the Deceased received an unbrupted proposal after the instant accident, and such a proposal is made.