A. On December 1, 2017, C operated D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D D the front road from the front of the G building to the front of the G building, and due to the negligence of bypassing the direction, etc. without looking at the front direction, etc., at the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, without turning on the direction, etc., the front side of the road at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, with approximately 14 weeks back to the Plaintiff, who suffered injury, such as crushing of pulbr, etc., which requires treatment for about 14 weeks in the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

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, Gap evidence 1, 2, 7 through 10 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages, C caused the accident of this case by negligence, which occurred while bypassing the direction, etc. without examining the front direction, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

3. The limitation of liability for damages: (a) the Plaintiff, as a bicycle rider, should get a bicycle when crossing the road using the crosswalk, and walk the bicycle (Article 13-2(6) of the Road Traffic Act). However, it appears that the Plaintiff had secondary caution in relation to the instant accident, including the Plaintiff’s crossing the crosswalk without signaling, and it is reasonable to deem that such secondaryism contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s amount of liability for damages is determined.