1. The Defendant’s KRW 47,504,834 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 3, 2012 to November 25, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Nonparty B: (a) around 03:55 on February 3, 2012, Nonparty B is C B’s car (hereinafter “Nonindicted 1”)

(ii)the Eco-air car (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 2”) driven by Non-Party D (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 2”) that was driven in the Eco-air (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 2”) of Non-Party D, while driving in the Eco-air (hereinafter referred to as “Non-Party 2”) on the part of Non-Party 2, who has been driving in the Eco-air (hereinafter referred to

) The rear part of the vehicle was shocked in front of the non-party 1 (hereinafter “the first accident”).

) Nonparty 1’s following Nonparty 1’s vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”)

) Nonparty G, who was driven by Nonparty G, stops rapidly in order to avoid Nonparty 1, who was stopped due to the primary accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was located in the right angles in the two-lane one lane and the two-lane one way. At that time, the said road at the time is used by following the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(1) The non-party I, who was driving, neglected his duty to ensure the safety distance, failed to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped earlier, and shocked the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”).

A) At the time, JM5 Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Small 3 Vehicles”) are as follows: (a) one lane between the three-lanes of the said roads; and (b) one lane.

2) Nonparty K, who was driving, failed to perform the duty of ensuring the safety distance, failed to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped earlier, and shocked the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the front part of Nonparty 3 (hereinafter “third-party accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the above chain of defluence, sustained injury, such as the right visvision. 2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

3. The plaintiff is a non-party 3 vehicle in the lawsuit of this case.