1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,933,455 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 5, 2008 to July 24, 2015, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B driven a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 07:30 on September 5, 2008, and turned the front road of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D along four-lanes from the Dolet basin to the discharge of the mass telephone station. The plaintiff was injured due to the following reasons while going beyond the above accident and going beyond the right side.

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

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case, according to the recognition of liability and the extinctive prescription.

(2) As to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant lawsuit was filed three years from December 17, 2008 when the Defendant paid the final insurance money to the Plaintiff, and that the extinctive prescription of the right to claim damages has expired.

On the other hand, in a peremptory notice as a reason for the interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 174 of the Civil Act, in a case where an obligor who has received the peremptory notice of performance of an obligation requests a grace period for the performance of an obligation to the obligee on the ground that it is necessary to examine whether the obligation exists or not, the peremptory notice shall be deemed to continue until the obligee receives the reply, and therefore, it shall be interpreted that the period of six months under the same Article shall be calculated from the time when the obligee received the reply from the obligor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53198 Decided March 15, 2012). However, in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 4, 6, 33, 34, and 35, the attorney-at-law who represented the Plaintiff and the employees of the Defendant company continued to adjust the amount of damages after the instant accident, and in the process, the Defendant’s obligation to pay the amount of damages is recognized.