1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,816,487 as well as 5% per annum from September 1, 2015 to December 21, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 10:45 on September 1, 2015, the Plaintiff was straighted along the two-lanes from the E side to the F Hospital, in accordance with the straight sloping line at the front of the Damart located in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, U.S., in accordance with the straight sloping line at the front of the transition line at the front of the intersection, the Plaintiff was straighted along the two-lanes, but on the side of G Apartment apartment, the Plaintiff was driving along the two-lanes of the Eastcheon-gu and the two-lanes of the two-lane (hereinafter “Defendant

(ii)an accident, despite this red signal, in contravention of the signal, in which the part adjacent to the left-hand side of the driver’s vehicle is collisioned (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cerebral alky, in detail, due to the instant accident.

3) The defendant is an insurance company which has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident of this case occurred by negligence by the defendant's vehicle passing through the intersection in violation of the signal, and therefore, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

2. Scope of damages;

A. Basic Matters 1) Basics: The “basic matters” in the annexed amount of damages calculation table: 2) The urban daily wage of the ordinary worker, the number of working days per month, and the Plaintiff’s age 22 years and 63 years at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident under the age of 63, but the Plaintiff’s age was 60 years and 2 months at the time of the occurrence of the accident under the age of 60, and thus, inasmuch as the Plaintiff was working at H, it would have been deemed that the Plaintiff performed an import activity during a certain period thereafter. However, in full view of the fact that the said company discontinued its business around April 2016 and there is no evidence to recognize that the company’s retirement age was 65 years, the Plaintiff’s maximum working

C. The rate of disability and labor disability in this case seems to remain due to the accident of this case, and the rate of disability reflecting the rate is 36% or king.