A. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 28,549,120 and KRW 21,734,756 among them, the amount of KRW 28,54,120 shall be from April 17, 2014; KRW 6,814,364.

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to Drails vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 16, 2014, around 18:41, 201, E passed the intersection by passing the intersection to the right side of the front vehicle stopped in order to protect and left at the intersection while driving one lane in front of the U.S. distance at the right side of the front vehicle in front of the U.S. road, while driving the Defendant vehicle. On the left side of the Defendant vehicle, the steering part of the Plaintiff A’s F-Click Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which passed the said intersection to the right side of the left side of the vehicle, was driven by the front driver of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as the “accident”. The circumstances of the accident are as follows: “A vehicle at the scene of the accident is the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Me2 vehicle is the Plaintiff’s vehicle.” As a result, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as cerebral lein, fluoral base, fluoral base, fluoral aggregate, 8, and 9 at the right end.”

C. Meanwhile, at the time of the instant accident, the direction of the Defendant’s vehicle was a yellow flash signal, and the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a red flash signal.

Plaintiff

B is the husband of the Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for damages because the plaintiff A sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

B. The Defendant, as to whether the instant accident is limited or not, is the “intersection with signal, etc.” and at the time, the signal of the Defendant was the yellow flasher signal with no obligation to temporarily stop, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle signal was the red flasher signal with the duty to temporarily stop. Therefore, even though the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not temporarily stop immediately before the intersection, the Defendant’s responsibility is 60% since the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not temporarily stop but entered the intersection and did not temporarily stop at least 40%.