1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. A. On February 2, 2011, B driving a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 11:20 on February 2, 201, and driving a four-distance road of Egylri No. 2 of Egylri-ri in U.S. Si, U.S., U.S., into the 1st square from U.S. IC bank to the 1st square. On February 2, 201, B received the side portion of U.S. vehicle from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle without the Plaintiff’s license plate for driving

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as minculization franchising on the left-hand side, mincing blavers in 2, etc., which requires approximately six weeks of treatment.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence while neglecting the duty of safe driving and front-down at the intersection where the Defendant Company B, a driver of the vehicle, did not regulate traffic. Thus, under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, the Defendant, the insurer under the comprehensive automobile insurance contract, is liable to directly compensate the Plaintiff for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the accident in this case pursuant to Article 724(2) of

However, according to the above evidence, there is negligence in neglecting the duty to ensure the safety of the Plaintiff, even though the Plaintiff was in a direct position at the intersection where the instant accident occurred, by taking into account the traffic situation well, and in particular, the Plaintiff is recognized as a situation in which the Plaintiff driven the Oral Ba at the time of the instant accident.

Since the Plaintiff’s mistake also caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, the Defendant’s liability ratio under the principle of fairness should be limited to 80% in full view of various circumstances, such as the background of the instant accident.

3. Compensation.