1. As to KRW 37,975,720 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and KRW 27,689,520 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Plaintiff’s counterclaim, May 21, 2013.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Fact-finding, as the Olympic Games located in Gangnam-gu, Seoul High-dong 462, the point at which the instant accident occurred, is a motorway with a speed of 60 km per hour, and B, at the point at which the instant accident occurred on September 7, 2012 (before sunrise) around 05:53, the Plaintiff’s insurable vehicle, and operated two lanes in the direction of the vehicle (the instant vehicle) at a speed of 71 to 80 km per hour at a speed of 71 to 80 km per hour, and the Defendant was under the influence of alcohol. At the same time, the Defendant stopped a bridge car in the five-lane direction of the running of the instant vehicle at the time when it was under the influence of alcohol and set a dispute with the driver earlier of the said bridge.

The driver's face was sold mainly to the driver's face, and crossed from the above five-lanes to the second-lanes of the accident point of this case, and the driver's face was faced with the accident of causing injuries, such as the diversified cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral le, etc. (the accident in this case). While the driver's face near the accident point of this case is coming to the front line of the vehicle into the front line, there is a drick, green belt, and a 3m height on the left side of the road in the direction of the vehicle in this case. On the right side of the road in this case, it is difficult to expect pedestrian's entry and passage because it is a green belt and a sloping. B was not found in the front line of the vehicle in this case while driving the vehicle in this case at the investigation agency, and the plaintiff did not know the defendant in advance during the operation of the vehicle in this case, and the plaintiff was unable to reach the purport of the defendant's testimony or statement that the defendant's evidence No. 371 to 47.

2. The judgment on the Plaintiff’s principal claim (the Defendant’s obligation to return unjust enrichment) provides that pedestrians shall not pass or cross the motorway, and thus, the Road Traffic Act provides that pedestrians shall not pass or cross the motorway.