1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The fact of recognition 1) The E, a driver, shall be the vehicle (D wing vehicles; hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) in the slope on the side-side side of the Busan Young-gu C apartment.

A) On October 13, 2013, when a vehicle parked a vehicle without accurately operating the brakes, left the driver’s seat, and walked along the sloped surface on October 13, 2013, while crossing the roadways, the vehicle shocked the Plaintiff, and caused injury to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability and limitation of liability, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence of the above E, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident, such as the fact that the instant road has been delivered, but the Plaintiff was walking along the place where the vehicle is traveling, and the time when the accident occurred is clearly low, and the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked before the shocking of the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s inspection of the other vehicle was done first before the shocking of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff would have easily known the state of the Defendant’s vehicle’s abnormal condition, and thus, the Plaintiff’s mistake or negligence became the cause of the instant accident and the expansion thereof.

As such, the defendant's liability is limited to 75% by taking into account various circumstances shown in the argument of this case.

2.For the convenience of accounting, except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages.