1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,547,631 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 26, 2014 to January 13, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around October 26, 2014, around 14:25, 2014, B: (a) the Defendant vehicle is the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) In the event that the Plaintiff’s driver’s license and the Plaintiff’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license holder’s license and license holder’s license and license holder’s license are

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 9 evidence, Eul 1 and 2 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. As to the limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts that the responsibility of the Plaintiff should be limited because the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting the front line. However, in order to ensure that the Plaintiff, who operated the three-lanes, had a duty of care to take necessary measures, such as speed reduction, while driving the front line in order to prevent the shock with the Defendant’s vehicle that driven the two-lanes, it is possible only on the premise that the Plaintiff could have anticipated the Plaintiff to enter the front line of the Plaintiff’s course by changing the front line. As seen earlier, the instant accident occurred by changing the front line, and the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone at the time.