1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 41,54,386 to the Plaintiff, as well as KRW 5% per annum from July 22, 2012 to December 22, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On July 21, 2012, C is the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 22:28, 2012.

) By the negligence of driving a two-lane road in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City along the median line while driving a two-lane road in front of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City along a one-lane radius from the sloping bank, the front part of the 124CC, which had no number plate of the plaintiff's driving that was Ma-gu in front of the opposite direction, was driven in front of the left side of the defendant's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the instant accident").

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as acute heropolytic levirosis, external heropolytic levirosis, etc.

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, and 11 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. In light of the part and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury limitation, it is recognized that the Plaintiff driven the Oral Ba without wearing a safety cap, and since the Plaintiff’s negligence caused the expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s negligence shall be deemed to be 15% and the Defendant’s responsibility shall be limited to 85%, taking into account all the circumstances shown in the argument of the instant case.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should also be limited in consideration of such circumstances, since the plaintiff did not discover the defendant's vehicle going beyond the central line in a timely manner due to the error that the plaintiff neglected to take the front line in drinking condition and caused the accident in this case.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was driving in a drinking state, and there is no other evidence to recognize it.

In addition, at the time of the accident of this case, the defendant vehicle intrudes on the central line and the plaintiff.