1. The Defendant paid KRW 7,266,967 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from September 5, 2014 to August 24, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff driven a B car on September 21:26, 2014, while driving the 3rd line road in front of the border of Gwangju Mine-gu, in the direction of a non-child protection, from the west-gu, Gwangju Metropolitan City, the Plaintiff was driven by the following vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as “aggresing vehicle”) who stopped for signal signal to the front red signal, and thereby suffered from the right shouldering power failure, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, the rupture, and the rupture.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to available vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability, the traffic accident in this case is deemed to have occurred due to the negligence of driving a harming vehicle while the driver of the harming vehicle is obliged to take the harming vehicle in front and driving the harming vehicle. Thus, the defendant is the insurer of the harming vehicle, who is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the traffic accident

B. Whether to limit liability or not, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety level mark may be deemed to be the Plaintiff’s shoulder due to the instant traffic accident, which is a post-strut, and that the damage should be increased thereby, the Defendant’s liability should be limited. However, such circumstance alone is insufficient to readily conclude that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety level mark at the time of the instant traffic accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Defendant’s assertion on this part, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion

3. The fact that there is no dispute over the scope of liability for damages [based on recognition], each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 9, the result of physical appraisal on the return to the head of the High University at the High University at the High School at the High School at the High School and the fact inquiry, and oral pleadings.