1. The Defendant’s KRW 53,73,727 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 18, 2015 to October 27, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 12:10 on December 18, 2015, B: (a) Category C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

(B) The E-to-be (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff O-babababababababababababababababababababababababababababababab, while driving the vehicle without temporarily stopping from the right side of the Defendant’

) The front wheel part of the Defendant’s front wheel part was collisioned with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right side (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the escape of the left-hand shoulder, the left-hand shoulder, the co-ordination of the pipe and the left-hand shoulder, and the left-hand screen rupture.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 9, 13 (including all additional evidence attached to the number

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. As can be recognized by the statement in Gap evidence No. 9-5, the road driven by the plaintiff Otoba and the road driven by the defendant's vehicle are almost equal in width, and as a result of CCTV analysis installed at the location of the accident in this case, the plaintiff Otoba and the defendant's vehicle entered the intersection almost at the same time, so the defendant argued that the defendant entered the intersection of the plaintiff Otoba in this case as the front part of the plaintiff Otoba and the defendant's vehicle conflict with the right side of the defendant's vehicle. However, in the case of only a collision on the part of the collision, the distance between the defendant's vehicle and the vehicle is in proportion to the speed.