1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,843,93 as well as the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from October 19, 2013 to June 12, 2015, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B driving a vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 16:30 on October 19, 2013, and driving a vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving the front road of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D along the direction of the central line, which was driven by the Plaintiff’s ebbane, who was on the part of the bed, going beyond the central line while driving along one lane from the IC seat of the amba-ro, the upper part of the road of the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government along the upper part of the road along the upper part of the river. The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the ambath, due to the said accident.

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

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 10 evidence, Eul evidence 6, 7, and 8, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts that there was an error by the Plaintiff’s failure to keep the intersection installed prior to the instant accident site in violation of the signal, and that there was negligence by failing to keep the Defendant’s U.S. vehicle from being aware of the fact that the U.S. driver could have known.

However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff was driving in violation of the signal or did not wear a safety cap, and the defendant's assertion on this is without merit.

In addition, the above evidence, in particular, according to the evidence Eul evidence No. 7, there was no difference between the beginning of the U-turn and the beginning of the collision between 3-4 seconds, and even before the commencement of the U-turn, the plaintiff was unable to discover the defendant's vehicle in advance after other waiting vehicles. In light of this, it is difficult for the plaintiff to predict and respond to the defendant's illegal internship in advance. Thus, the defendant's remaining arguments are without merit.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's fault in the accident of this case is recognized.