1. The Defendant’s KRW 104,975,398 as well as 5% per annum from September 4, 2012 to August 28, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) C Car under the influence of alcohol on September 4, 2012 at around 21:30, the blood alcohol content of which is 0.179%; (b) C Car under the influence of alcohol (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

2) On the other hand, the Defendant’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s Dbee-cracked the front part of the Defendant’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving of the Dbee-cracked the front part of the Defendant’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving at the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thereby, the Plaintiff suffered from the Defendant’s driving of the Plaintiff’s driving at the right side, the right side of the Plaintiff’s driving, the right side of the Plaintiff, and the upper part of the Cbee-cracked and the upper part of the Defendant’s rack

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

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, and 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The instant accident subject to limitation of liability does not mean that the Defendant’s driver, while driving on a one-lane road at night, has unilaterally received the Plaintiff’s driver’s vehicle, who driven a one-lane road by breaking a virtual center line, and driving on a one-lane road. As such, the Plaintiff, who was driving on one’s own lane, could not avoid the collision. Therefore, there is no reason to limit the Defendant’s liability.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the plaintiff suffered from the Alley Jina is due to the fact that the plaintiff did not fasten the safety belt, but the use of the safety belt should not be concealed without permission.