1. The Defendant’s KRW 726,626,394 as well as 5% per annum from January 9, 2014 to November 10, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) B is a vehicle C around January 9, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 05:20 on January 9, 2014

) A driver of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, driving his front road along the two-lanes of the Hanyang apartment distance between the two-lanes of the Hanyang apartment distance, and changing the course to the three-lanes, and neglecting the duty of front-time care and stopping the cargo vehicle at the three-lanes of the Madle, which led to the Plaintiff’s shock in front of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the blood ties from external wounds, the ductal ductal, the left ductal ductal ductal ductal, etc.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, 18, 19, 22 (including all proof attached with a serial number, and the purport

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the location of the instant accident is a zone where a yellow-ray is placed at the edge of the road, being a bended road, and the Plaintiff, at night, neglected to ensure one’s own safety by properly examining the movement of other vehicles when loading and unloading a cargo vehicle on the road where parking is prohibited; and (b) the Plaintiff, while neglecting to ensure one’s own safety.

On the other hand, the plaintiff argued that there was no error since the plaintiff temporarily stopped to get off the accident as a place where parking is prohibited, but stopping is permitted, but the "parking" driver is waiting for passengers, is being loaded with cargo, or is broken down, or is other than the vehicle.