2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/5 are assessed against the Plaintiff, and 4/5 are assessed against the Defendant, respectively.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Defendant concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with the unregistered industry development company (vehicle number omitted) on a truck of 27 tons (hereinafter “Defendant truck”).

2) On March 16, 2013, Nonparty 1 driven Defendant Truck (Ma1) on or around 14:48, 2013, and proceeded from the face of aptitude with the speed of 51 to 60/h km from the two-lanes to the Seosan-Eup at a speed of 80 km from the two-lanes, Nonparty 1 was driven by Nonparty 2, who was driven by Defendant Truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), with the front part of Defendant Truck (hereinafter “instant accident”).

A person shall be appointed.

3) The Plaintiff, who was on board the back partitions of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered an injury, such as a cirratulation.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 4, 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. Recognition of liability

According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer.

C. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's fault should be reflected at least 30% in that it is clear that the plaintiff's vehicle was in a sudden fashion and did not wear safety belts while driving on the back partitions, which is the cargo use. The defendant argues that the plaintiff's fault should be reflected at least 30% in that it is clear that the plaintiff's vehicle was in a sudden fashion.

However, even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle was driven slowly, it is difficult to view that there was any negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, who boarded the back column (Evidence A No. 12) of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without safety belts according to the order, or there is any circumstance to limit the Defendant’s liability.

2. Scope of liability for damages

In addition to the following separate statements, each item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages shall be the same as the corresponding item of the attached table for calculating the amount of damages, and the period for calculating the amount for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis in principle, but less than the last month and less than won shall be discarded. The current value calculation at the time of the accident shall be in accordance with the simple interest rate which deducts the interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month. Moreover,

(a) Actual income:

1) Plaintiff’s personal information: The same is as indicated in the “basic matter” column of the attached table for calculation of damages: Provided, That the Plaintiff’s life expectancy is presumed to have been 68% compared with the normal person on the basis of the physical appraisal date ( December 17, 2014). As such, the end date of life expectancy shall be deemed to be until May 19, 2053.

2) Income and operating period: Since the Plaintiff was in the military service at the time of the accident, the urban daily wage of an ordinary worker from June 11, 2014 to June 60 of the date following the scheduled date of discharge from military service and the number of working days on the 22th day of the month.

○○ Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was temporarily closed on September 3, 2012 while attending the △△△△ University and was scheduled to return back to two semesters in 2014, and thus, the Defendant ought to calculate the amount of actual income from March 1, 2017, taking into account five semesters, which are the remainder of the university. However, in the instant case where the statistical income as a university graduate does not apply, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff was reinstated to the said university after discharge and completed the course, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

(iii)the neutism and labour capacity loss rate (neychrona).

○ 100% of the loss of labor capacity due to Madrobal ma, permanent disability (two parts of the Mabrodal disability assessment table, brain, Ⅲ-D)

4) Calculation: As stated in the column of “actual income” in the attached Form for calculation of damages.

B. Future treatment costs: (a) there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant spent future treatment costs with the nego and urology prior to the date of the closing of the instant argument, except those already paid by the Defendant, and thus, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant spent the future treatment costs with the negonology from October 28, 2015 to October 1, 2015, the day following the date of the closing of the instant argument shall be deemed to have been spent at intervals of one

1) Native surgery: A period of life elapsed requires 9,173,500 won per year for rehabilitation treatment, etc.

Type of table contained in the main sentence: 1 year unit price for rehabilitation treatment, etc.: 9,173,500 first required: 20.000 total sum of 2015-10-28 numerical value: 183,470,000

○ The Defendant asserts that since the examination expenses for kidne diseases and the administration fees for urine therapy overlap with urine, examination fees, and urology medication fees, the amount of 6,51,322 won should be reduced. However, the above assertion cannot be accepted as it is difficult to view that treatment overlaps with the amount claimed.

(ii) urology;

A) Eurology disorder: Pharmacologic treatment, luminous function test, urine batology test, and urology replacement cost per year. It requires 5,177,178 won per year.

B) Pre-contributions: It is anticipated that sexual life will be possible until the age of 69, but it is presumed that the Plaintiff will terminate life prior to that time, and thus, it will take 1,78,880 won per year with the expenses for injection of five-time-causing drugs until the end of life.

The category of urology contained in the main sentence: The number of years before an outbreak: One-year unit price: 5,177,178,178 unit price: the first required date in 1,778,880: 20.00 first required: 20.00 first required date in 2015-10-28: The total of 20.000: the final date 2053-5-19 cost: 103,543,560 first day: the total of 2053-5,560 cost: 35,57,600

(iii) sexual malute (sal malute type)

m (amount required) 4,580,000 won 2015-10-28 31,056,048 won

C. Assistants: The table is as follows (for accounting convenience, the first disbursement is deemed made on October 28, 2015, following the date of closing argument of this case).

(i) 1.5 million won, permanently;

2) Special wheel chairss are required every five years to 4 million won.

3) For the purpose of preventing bathing, KRW 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00

Type of table contained in the main sentence: Number of special wheel chairss: One year: Number of years: Number of years: 1,500,000 unit price for 3 years: 4,000,000 unit price for 4,000: 1,000,000 first required: 2015-10-28: 0.856 first necessary date: Total of 2015-10-28: 2015-10-28: 4.10 first necessary date: 2015-10-28: The total of 6.9762: 20.28. The total of 2015-10-28 expenses: 2053-5-197, 1097, 328, 400: the final date: 205-5-197, 106, 2005-6, 209: the total of expenses.

(d) Nursing expenses: It is reasonable to consider that one adult female care is necessary for 8 hours a day by the end of the remaining life of the plaintiff, excluding 3 days of the hospitalization period of the middle patient room, in consideration of all the circumstances, such as the parts and degree of injury caused by the instant accident, the progress of treatment, the parts and degree of the aftermath disability, the details and necessity of the nursing, and anticipated lighting, and the expenses shall be based on the urban daily wage).

- 2, 97. 2, 36. 2, 97- 46. 2, 97. 46. 2, 97. 2, 97- 46. 2, 97. 46. 2, 97. 46. 2, 97- 97. 46. 7. 96. 46. 2, 97. 97. 96. 46. 7. 96. 12, 97. 46. 2, 97. 2, 97. 46. 45, 97. 12, 54, 2394, 954. 95 10, 107, 247. 36. 46. 96. 1, 1966- 36. 47. 97

(e) Deduction: Deduction of KRW 105,700,000 as advance payment for damages paid by the Defendant;

(f) consolation money;

1) Grounds for consideration: All the circumstances shown in the pleadings of the instant case, including the background of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s age, the parts and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury and the post-harm, and the amount of criminal agreement.

(ii) the amount recognized: 70 million won;

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap's results of the physical commission to 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21; Eul's evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6; the results of the physical commission to Gyeong-hee Hospital; the results of the fact inquiry to Mansan Hospital in Human University; the results of the fact inquiry to Man-dong Hospital affiliated with the Egynam University; and the purport of the entire pleadings at Egynam University】

3. Conclusion

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 1,440,122,318 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 16, 2013, which is the date of the accident in this case, to November 24, 2015, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. The plaintiff's claim is partially accepted.

[Attachment]

Judges Equitable