1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid additionally shall be revoked.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) F is the D Vehicle around 16:50 on May 11, 201, 201 (hereinafter “instant Maritime Vehicle”).

2) The Plaintiff’s G car (hereinafter “victim”) driven by the Plaintiff’s driver (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”) driving on the two-lane road in front of the entrance of the new large-scale bridge located in the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the road.

3) The left-hand panion of the instant wing vehicle was shocked by the front winger of the instant wing vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, who was driving the instant damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, sustained the injury, such as the so-called upper left-hand pelle, the upper-hand pelle pelle, the upper-hand pelle pelle, and the left-hand pelle pelle.

3) With respect to the instant accident, F was indicted on summary charge of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and was issued a summary order of KRW 3 million on July 25, 201 (the Changwon District Court Tong Branch Branch Decision 2011 High Court Branch Decision 4562). On September 15, 2011, the said summary order became final and conclusive on September 15, 2011. (4) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract, including the so-called “special agreement on vehicle driving security” between F’s wife I and his husband.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 9, 10, 11, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition as the basis of liability, the point of accident of this case is installed with the central line and the median system, and at the time, the surface was slicked at the time, and therefore, F is deemed to have been negligent in violating the duty of care by reducing speed and accurately manipulating the steering and brakes while operating the instant sea-going vehicle, and by accurately manipulating the steering and steering devices. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused to the Plaintiff due to the instant accident, as an insurer under the “Special Agreement on the Operation Security of other Motor Vehicles”.