1. The Defendant’s KRW 276,334,192 as well as 5% per annum from May 30, 2006 to September 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 21:45 on May 30, 2006, B is the Defendant’s vehicle.

) A driving of Ha, and passing through the said intersection in violation of the signal, while passing through the said intersection, one of the two-lane roads near the E-Road intersection in front of the E-Road Station in Yongnam-gun D located in Yongnam-gun D, via the said intersection. The two-lanes away from the one-lane opposite to the direction of the Defendant vehicle in the said intersection to the said intersection in the direction of the intersection, and the two-lanes facing the center line to turn to the left through the opposite lane without reaching the intersection to the intersection, the collision point is one where the front side of the FF vehicle in the Plaintiff’s driving, which met with the center, and the two-lanes of the vehicle in front of the Defendant vehicle in the direction of the crossing, conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle in front of the left side of the Defendant vehicle, and approximately 10 meters away from the intersection to the intersection (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered the injury, such as the impairment of less than the number of brain cerebral lele and the dule executive dlele (hereinafter “instant”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, 8, Eul evidence 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. 1. However, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff driven the above vehicle without a driver's license, and when making a left turn at the intersection, the Plaintiff entered the intersection normally in accordance with the new subparagraph and made a left turn to the left at the intersection, but the Plaintiff was at the intersection prior to passing through the opposite lane in advance. Furthermore, the Plaintiff was at the intersection prior to the accident at the time of the accident.