1. The Defendant’s KRW 128,213,418 as well as 5% per annum from September 11, 201 to November 12, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact, around 08:29 on September 11, 201, at a point 31 km in the direction of the path of the highway between Dogggjin-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-do, Chungcheongnam-gun, the occurrence of an accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) where B cab, while proceeding one-lane in the two-lanes of the two-lanes, coming off in the broom, and the central separation zone of the highway was set up, and the retaining wall was shocked and returned beyond the opposite lane after receiving it (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

In the above taxi, five passengers, including the driver and the plaintiff, were on board the taxi. However, three persons were dead due to the instant accident, and the plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the mouth of the closed tent.

Despite the fact that there were many rains at the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, the said taxi continued to run approximately 128 km per hour.

The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with Taecheon-si Co., Ltd. which is the owner of the above taxi.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-2, Eul evidence 3-5, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As a taxi driver who proceeds from a sloping road due to its judgment costs, the taxi driver has a duty of care to reduce the speed of the sloping road and pay special attention to the operation of the steering gear, thereby promoting the safety of the passengers.

Nevertheless, the above taxi driver has caused the accident in this case because he was not only bound but also failed to operate the steering gear properly, so he shall be liable for damages caused by the tort against the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant, the insurer, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

2. At the time of the instant accident limiting liability for damages, the Plaintiff appears to have failed to wear a safety level mark (No. 3 4-5). Considering the process and the injury part of the Plaintiff as shown in the medical certificate (No. 4-1-2), the Plaintiff’s negligence on which the Plaintiff did not wear a safety mark mark.