1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 22,673,94 as well as to the plaintiff on December 2010.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a)The following facts may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, 10, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleadings:

1) B is the Defendant’s vehicle at approximately 20:50 on December 13, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(B) While driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle to turn to the left at both Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, the Plaintiff, who was walking at the edge of the said road, was shocked by the front left-hand side of the Defendant vehicle and the engine cover (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as blood transfusions under the margin of credit and undermining less than the Defendant’s vehicle. 2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

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. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances acknowledged in the above facts by comprehensively taking account of each of the above evidence, namely, the road involved in the accident of this case is merely 6.2 meters wide, there is no distinction between the roadway and the delivery; and (b) the plaintiff walking along the intersection of a three-distance crossing with the light of the defendant vehicle could have anticipated the progress of the defendant vehicle first by using the light of the defendant vehicle; (c) the plaintiff must walk in the manner of checking the safety of the front left right at night where the view is restricted; and (d) the plaintiff is negligent by neglecting his/her duty to walk along the direction opposite to the vehicle and the vehicle in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Road Traffic Act, namely, inasmuch as he/she has a duty to walk at the edge of the left side of the road or the roadside area of the road that he/she walk, and as a pedestrian, by negligence.

As such, the plaintiff is entitled to do so.