1. The Defendant’s KRW 17,091,935 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from December 14, 2012 to February 18, 2016 for the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On December 14, 2012, Nonparty B: (a) driven a C-Motor vehicle on December 14, 2012; (b) proceeded into the dynamics from Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-gu, Incheon, Seocheon-gu, Incheon; (c) neglected the duty of the front line of the preceding vehicle; (d) neglected the back part of the preceding vehicle; (c) the preceding vehicle re-expled D-motor vehicles in front of the former (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff was on board the auxiliary seat of the said damaged vehicle, but the Plaintiff suffered injury to the 5-6 conjection and the 4-5 T&5 T&N, etc. due to the instant accident.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to damaged vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 through 7 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the results of each physical appraisal commission to the director of the Macheon-do University affiliated with the Macheon-do University and the results of fact inquiry, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accident as the insurer of the vehicle causing the accident in this case.

On the other hand, the defendant argues that the escape certificate of the protruding signboard from the plaintiff's injury is entirely sperperched, and there is no causal relationship between the accident and the accident of this case. However, the above fact that the appraiser in the physical appraisal entrustment has a career of treating the plaintiff's past from the defendant, and that there is no other expert opinion that there is no reported case of the escape certificate of the protruding signboard from the plaintiff due to a traffic accident in literature, while the above opinion is presented to affirm the causal relationship between the accident of this case and the injury suffered by the plaintiff.