1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 18:55 on September 23, 2010, B driven a Cribe towing vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with a alcohol level of 0.171% in alcohol level, and passed the intersection in front of the E station located in Gyeong-gun, Sung-gun, the Defendant vehicle entered the intersection prior to the Defendant vehicle and met the front side of the FF driver vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”) which is proceeding on the right side from the left side of the Defendant vehicle with the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s spouse H in addition to the driver F and the Plaintiff and I were on board the Plaintiff’s child.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability for damages, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff's injury caused by the accident of this case is caused by king and there is no causation.

On the other hand, in principle, the burden of proving the existence of the causal relationship between the tort and the damage is the victim, and the perpetrator's side claims that the harm is caused by the king evidence, the perpetrator's claim is the denial of the causal relationship under the litigation law, and therefore, the victim has a causal relationship between the accident and the injury.

shall be proved that there was no post-explosive disability due to or passive evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da94909 Decided March 13, 2014). However, the victim of a traffic accident becomes more likely to suffer a certain injury due to the aggravation of the king evidence by the victim of the traffic accident in concurrence with the accident.