1. The Defendant’s KRW 32,023,953 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 16, 2017 to November 14, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) Nonparty C is the Defendant’s vehicle with the D Lastsing D (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) around 11:5:00 am on September 16, 2017.

) A driver’s Haba (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driving the Plaintiff’s Haba (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Haba”) driving on the two-lanes from the opposite direction at the time while driving the 62-lane road along the inner direction of the city as the area of the malfunction.

(1) The front part of the Defendant vehicle was the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of kneee, such as the blue blue blue blue blue, both sides of blue blue blue blue, etc.

3) The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle (based on recognition). The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 10, Eul evidence No. 1 through 4

B. The drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses are not likely to impede the normal flow of traffic of pedestrians, other motor vehicles and riders of horses, they shall not cross the road by driving their motor vehicles and riders of horses (Article 18(1) of the Road Traffic Act). As such, the drivers of motor vehicles and riders of horses have the duty of care to prevent accidents from being caused by the vehicle from being driven on the opposite lane while making a U-turn.

Nevertheless, since the Defendant’s vehicle neglected such duty of care and the instant accident occurred, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. Limit of liability, however, there was no median line in the place where the instant accident occurred, and the lane operated by the Defendant’s vehicle was not particularly designated as the U.S. prohibited area, and in such circumstances, the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, also opposed to the passage.