1. The Defendant’s KRW 44,071,750 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from April 3, 2018 to September 25, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On April 3, 2018, C: (a) around 04:46, April 3, 2018, C is a D-gner vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving a vehicle and driving the F agency in Gyeyang Incheon Gyeyang-gu along the direction of the vehicle at the direction of the direction of the vehicle, the Plaintiff, who cross the crosswalk in the direction of the vehicle to the right side from the left side in accordance with the pedestrian signals, was shocked into the front part of the left part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff sustained the injury, such as the alley, the right slelet, the right slelet, etc., due to the instant traffic accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract. The ground for recognition has no dispute, and the evidence No. 2 of the Plaintiff (which has a serial number)

(2) each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings (including criminal records sent by the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office according to the commission of the service of documents by this Court)

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserted that there was an error of walking along the crosswalk without examining whether the Plaintiff was a vehicle moving around the crosswalk at the new wall time. However, the Plaintiff was crossinging the crosswalk normally in accordance with the pedestrian signals in the crosswalk where the signal, etc., and was shocked by the Defendant’s vehicle moving around the crosswalk while the Plaintiff completed almost crossing. The instant accident did not properly examine whether there was a pedestrian walking on the crosswalk where the signal, etc. was sent, although the signal, etc. was turned on, and whether there was a pedestrian walking.