1. The Defendant’s KRW 125,074,110 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from April 15, 2012 to November 25, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 15, 2012, the Defendant, without a motorcycle driver’s license on April 15, 2012, at around 15:36, collisioned with freight vehicles running in the opposite three-lanes by negligence over the center line, where the Defendant was driving the Plaintiff on the back seat of the 124cc Oba (hereinafter “the instant Oba”), and the Seoul Jongno-gu newspaper 1, a four-lane road in front of the 58-1 Gu Tax Center, which was driving the four-lanes from the Seoba-gu basin to the Sejong Lba-riside.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as an ductal ductal ducts, ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ducts.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, who is the driver of the Oral Ba in this case, caused the accident of this case by neglecting the duty of safe driving and the duty of safe driving without a motorcycle driver's license, resulting in the negligence of driving the central line, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident in this case.

(b) Provided, That if an operator of a vehicle allows a passenger to take the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passenger on board without any consideration and receives the passenger on his/her own behalf for his/her own convenience and interest, he/she may reduce the amount of compensation if it is deemed very unreasonable in light of the principle of good faith or the principle of equity to impose liability like a general traffic accident on the perpetrator in light of all circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, personal relationship with the passenger on his/her own, personal relationship with the passenger on his

However, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff and the Defendant reside in the same house as the motive student who attended the same department of the university (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 91Da4093, May 12, 1992).