1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 236,041,553 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from July 9, 201 to October 22, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts below the facts of recognition can be acknowledged without dispute between the parties, or in full view of the entries in Gap 1 through 5 (including each number), and the whole purport of the arguments, and there is no counter-proof otherwise.

(1) At around 14:55 on July 9, 201, B driven a C vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “fence vehicle”) and driven at the 88 Expressway 8-4 KM branch located in the same Dogri-ri-ri-ri from the Daegu bank to the 130.4 KM branch located in the Daegu bank, and caused the Plaintiff to inflict an injury on the Plaintiff, such as an an alley-alley, a e vehicle driven by D with the front part of the vehicle driving on the troke line with the Plaintiff on the right side of the said vehicle, due to the negligence that caused the sudden central line of the vehicle, and caused the Plaintiff to take the front part of the vehicle driving on the troke line with the Plaintiff.

(2) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the above sea-going vehicle as an insured vehicle.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff as the victim for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The defendant's defense of comparative negligence by the defendant, although Eul, the perpetrator, was involved in the accident of this case due to the invasion of the central line, D, the driver of the victimized vehicle, could have observed or observed the central line in advance, and since the plaintiff did not wear the safety belt, the plaintiff's negligence contributed to a certain degree of the accident of this case. However, the defendant's defense is not sufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

(A) According to the statement Nos. 1-3, 4, and 9, the accident of this case occurred by turning back the center line to the direction of the Gap self-devision due to a cause for which the cause of the family-related vehicle is not known. A.

In addition to the statements under the calculation of damages, the attached Form shall be the damages.