1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,131,771 and as to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from October 29, 2012 to September 9, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 13:00 on October 29, 2012, B: (a) private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

) A person driving a motor vehicle by driving a motor vehicle and driving a D motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) operated by the Plaintiff, who was on the part of the Si 71 to 80km away at the speed of 80km at the speed of speed at the speed of 71 to 70km at the speed of speed at the speed of 80km from the surface of the metro at the speed of the speed of e-mail at the speed of e-mail at the speed of e-mail at the speed of 71 to 80km at the speed of the city at the speed of the e-mail.

2) The part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle was the front part of the Defendant’s rolling stock (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant concluded a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 3 evidence, Eul 6 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator.

C. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff's negligence should be reflected more than 30% in calculating the plaintiff's losses caused by the accident of this case in light of the fact that the plaintiff did not wear the safety level, the speed of the plaintiff, and the alteration of the plaintiff's vehicle and the fact that the air bags do not exist at the time of the collision.

However, there is no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety labelling, and as seen earlier, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been bound in light of the speed limit, and it is insufficient to view that the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was installed in the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the time of sale.

Therefore, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is difficult to accept.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than the last month and less than KRW 1.