1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,673,199 as well as 5% per annum from November 25, 2009 to November 27, 2012 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The grounds for the responsibility (1) B driven a C Ecoos car (hereinafter “accidented vehicle”) around 12:30 on November 25, 2009, and proceeded on a side road without distinction between the sidewalk 140-83 report and the roadway, Geumcheon-gu Seoul, Geumcheon-gu, Seoul, as a side surface from the bank bank to D, and suffered an injury, such as a salt, etc., to the Plaintiff by shocking the Plaintiff’s left side bridge.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to the accident vehicle.

(2) According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4, Gap 30 evidence 1 to 9, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s negligence, as well as the Plaintiff’s negligence, neglected to observe his/her duty to maintain his/her safety, such as coming from the side road and having well live around and avoiding from the vehicle behind, etc., and such negligence is deemed to have resulted in the occurrence of an accident and the expansion of damages, and the Defendant’s liability is to be taken into account in determining the Defendant’s liability.

(2) In a case where the damage was caused or expanded by competition between the harmful act of limitation on liability caused by a physical novel and the harmful act caused by the injured party, even though the injured party’s factors are irrelevant to the cause attributable to the injured party, such as the risk of a physical novel or disease, in light of the form and degree of the disease, etc., the court may consider the factors of the injured party who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage in determining the amount of compensation in accordance with the principle of comparative negligence, in the event the injured party’s compensation is contrary to the principle of fairness.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da85922, Feb. 11, 2010). The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence acknowledged earlier, namely, immediately after the Plaintiff’s accident.