1. The Defendant’s KRW 38,185,195 as well as 5% per annum from March 28, 2015 to December 14, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) C is driving a D vehicle on March 28, 2015 at around 10:30 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeding in the direction of moving to Tol in the direction of moving tol from the front part of the Friju station in E at the innju City.

The center line was invaded and received in front of the right side of the Defendant’s H Cargo Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s Vehicle”) driven by G Driving on the opposite lane.

(2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, sustained injuries, such as the opening frame of the necessary part of the body frame, the lower body frame, and the scambling frame.

(3) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts whether the instant accident occurred or not, since the instant road is a road section where a temporary median line is marked due to the construction of the road, the driver of the vehicle could have anticipated the opposite lane to go ahead by mistake, and further, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited since the Defendant’s vehicle was aware of the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was in transit by breaking the central line, but did not take appropriate preventive measures.

In light of the following, the driver’s view cannot be deemed to have been restricted in light of the date of the accident, the date of the accident, and the road structure, and the driver’s view of the vehicle cannot be seen as having been installed along the center line of yellow solid lines, and thus, the driver cannot be deemed to have a duty to drive the vehicle while predicting the reverse driving of the opposite lane.

The driver of the defendant's vehicle stated that it was confused with the police from time to time, but he was simply aware of the central line in the prosecution.