A. At around 16:37 on November 14, 2014, B stopped a Dppppack vehicle (hereinafter “dpacking vehicle”) on the side of the three-distance side of the C adjacent to the Pakistan, and it did not discover a E-1 ton truck, where the vehicle was dried and the vehicle was dried up, and the said truck felled into the left side of the hacking vehicle. Accordingly, the above truck caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) leading to the entrance and exit of the part of the hacking down to the F (hereinafter “the instant building”).

B. The Plaintiff is the owner of the instant building, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Ghana.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 3 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the fact that the occurrence of liability for damages is recognized, B breached its duty and caused the instant accident even though he/she is obliged to change the lanes by paying attention to the existence of a vehicle which stops after departure of a parked vehicle.

As such, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer of the household-going vehicle.

3. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion entered KRW 10,020,00, and KRW 5,000,000, in order to recover from damages caused by the instant building due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff also takes KRW 5,00,000 each year from 2015 to 2017 to maintain and repair the instant building. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay each of the above amounts.

B. According to the reasoning of evidence No. 5 (excluding the subsequent part rejected), according to the report on the current state of building damage conducted by the company for the first structure safety technology, the instant building occurred in some columns, beams, and floors, due to the instant accident.