1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,35,791 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 2, 201 to February 19, 2014, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) B is based on B’s basis of liability: around 09:13 September 2, 201, C’s salary class III truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) The Plaintiff’s non-motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) that had been driven by his driver while driving his motor vehicle and driving his motor vehicle on the front side of the front line, due to his negligence while neglecting the duty of the front line and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and right

(B) Around early detection of the Plaintiff’s right side side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle by entering the Uton Pocket line and finding a sudden reduction thereof, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as the escape of the galking 5-6 confluence, the fluoring 4-5 confluence, and pressure of the cluort, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, in light of the following: (a) although the degree of the instant accident is relatively minor, the Plaintiff suffered a pro rata disability that constitutes a permanent disability in the essential part; and (b) the Plaintiff is a person who was the party to the instant accident to catch a Handphone away from the floor of the Plaintiff’s vehicle while the Plaintiff appears to make it difficult to catch a handphone away from the floor of the vehicle while normally wearing the safety bell, it can be deemed that the Plaintiff was in a state of failing to wear the safety bell normally at the time of the instant accident; and (c) it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident, by failing to wear the safety bell normally, the ratio of negligence is limited to 10%, and the Defendant’s liability is limited to 90%.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap No. 3, Gap No. 4-1 to 3, and Eul.