1. Of the part against Plaintiff A in the judgment of the court of first instance, the following amount is equivalent to Plaintiff A.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The following facts do not conflict between the parties to the finding of the occurrence of liability, or may be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence 3, evidence 4, evidence 7, evidence 2-1, and evidence 2-7, and evidence 2-1, and evidence 1 of the trial witness I as a whole.

(A) On April 22, 2012, at around 00:05, E driven a F FFD car, and led A to go beyond the road on the front part of the said car while moving to the right side of the said road from the H Hospital to the monthly elementary school room at the H Hospital, along with a one-lane road in front of the DDmaart located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu., the Plaintiff, who was going to the right side of the said road, was shocked to the front part of the said vehicle.

(B) The plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as cage cage cages at approximately 10 weeks of treatment due to the accident in this case.

(C) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Party E with regard to the said passenger car.

(2) According to the above fact-finding, the defendant is an insurer E, who is an operator under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case pursuant to Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act.

I would like to say.

B. In full view of the following facts: (a) whether to limit liability, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 2-1 to 6-5 of Eul evidence 2, and Eul evidence 2-1 to 6 of the party witness I’s testimony, the plaintiff was found to have been involved in the accident of this case in the time when the plaintiff was discharged from the bar by putting clothes of the non-sprinking system at night and waiting for a taxi; and (b) such negligence of the plaintiff Gap was caused by the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident of this case.

Therefore, it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, but the ratio of negligence shall be 30%.

2. The convenience in calculating the scope of compensation for damage.