A. In fact, at around 21:36, Dec. 18, 2012, B: (a) driving D Poter Cargo Vehicle C with blood alcohol concentration of 0.146%; (b) making a left-hand turn at the right-hand intersection located in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Gwangju; (c) making a left-hand turn from KBS broadcasting station on the side of the KBS broadcasting station at the right-hand turn; and (d) entering the KBS broadcasting station from the right-hand edge to the right-hand turn; and (e) reached the yellow signal at the speed of about 118 km (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”); and (e) caused damage to the Plaintiff, who was on the back side of the said Poter, caused damage to the course of the 6-7 Rabway.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the foregoing cargo vehicle driven by B.

[Evidence] Evidence Nos. 2, 3, Eul Nos. 1 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found as above, since B was driving the above cargo while causing the instant accident and thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the instant accident.

C. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s liability is limited to 90% of the Defendant’s liability, taking account of such circumstances, as the Plaintiff’s fault that did not fasten the safety level (i.e., video and the purport of the entire pleadings).

(1) At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s liability should be limited by taking into account the fact that the Plaintiff, a taxi passenger at the time of the instant accident, was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to urge E to drive a taxi at a speed of about 118km at a speed of speed, 60km, which is a speed of 118km. However, the Plaintiff, a taxi passenger at the time of the instant accident, who is a taxi, was negligent in driving the taxi at a speed of about 118km.