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

Attached Form

As to the accident described in the list, the plaintiff against the defendant.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle B and C Dalar (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

2) On March 24, 2012, the Defendant, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on March 24, 2012, neglected his/her duty of front-way watch while neglecting his/her right of front-way watch in order to enter the E-cafeteria located in Ma-si to the road on March 24, 2012 (hereinafter “instant accident”), caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the Plaintiff’s front right side side side of the G driving of the Defendant, while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle and neglecting his/her duty of front-way watch to enter the road on the G-cafeteria parking lot located in Ma-si, FF-5 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

In regard to this, the plaintiff argued to the effect that the negligence of the accident of this case occurred between 20 and 30%, and thus, comparative negligence should be recognized. However, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, the accident of this case conflicts with the rear wheels of the plaintiff's vehicle that entered the two-lane road from the parking lot B when entering the two-lane road from the parking lot, and the accident of this case conflicts with the latter wheels of the plaintiff's vehicle that was operating the one-lane. This is entirely caused by negligence by the plaintiff's negligence of neglecting the duty of Jeonju, which is the insured of this case, and therefore, the defendant is not guilty. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

2. In addition to the separate statements below the scope of the liability for damages, the following statements are the same as the statement in the net income calculation table (in accordance with the headmanem method which deducts the interim interest calculated at the rate of 5/12 per month from the simple interest, the present is calculated in accordance with the pinem method, and the present is less than and less than 3 months in pinem’s convenience), and the parties’ arguments.