1. The Defendant’s KRW 39,367,795 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 7, 2015 to September 26, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D vehicles around November 7, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

) A driver of Seodaemun-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government driving his vehicle and 50 lanes off the four-lanes of the four-lanes, led the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”) going off from the sidewalk’s seat to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the duplicating of cuplicities and tensions, 2, 3, 5, 6, 8 chest pressures, 1, 2, 3, and 4 cuplics on the right side of the cuplicus.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 2, and 3 (each entry, including the

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The defendant asserts that the exemption of liability and liability are limited to the defendant's driver of the defendant's vehicle who has driven the road at the time when the plaintiff met, and the accident of this case occurred, and since there is no negligence on the part of the defendant's driver who driven the road at the time.

However, in view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of Eul evidence No. 3 (including paper numbers) and the entire pleadings, namely, that the place where the instant accident occurred was a place where pedestrians could get off to the road as a place near the taxi platform, and that there was no obstacle to the plaintiff's view that there was no obstacle to the driver's view of the defendant's view, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone fulfilled its duty of care, such as the duty to keep the driver's view prior to the time of the instant accident.

(2) If a person has fulfilled his duty of care, he shall be deemed to have fulfilled his duty.