1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,662,985 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 31, 2016 to August 11, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 20:30 on May 31, 2016, B: (a) C gallon vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”)

(i)A driver's license and a driver's license and a driver's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder.

) In order to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle moving into a three-lane, G Driving’s side side of the H Costkex Cor bed with the three-lane (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s side of the G Driving’s H Costkex Cor bed with the front left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered from the injury of 3,636,720 won of the repair cost due to the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was damaged to the effect that the repair cost was 3,636,720 won.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s 2, 12, Eul’s 2, and Eul’s 4,

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiff's vehicle was damaged due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

C. However, according to the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff neglected the duty of safe driving in preparation for the vehicle in which the course was changed, and thus, such circumstances should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, but the Defendant’s liability is limited to 90% by deeming the Plaintiff’s negligence as 10%, and the Defendant’s liability is limited to 90%.

2. Scope of liability for damages.