1. The Defendant’s KRW 100,729,958 for the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s 5% per annum from June 8, 2015 to November 24, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) B: (a) around 18:42 on June 8, 2015, C SP car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) is deemed as “Defendant vehicle.”

2) The Plaintiff’s driving of the Plaintiff and left the left at the 4-lane of the “Ecafeteria” road located in the Seogu Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu, to turn to the left, and then changed the two-lane from the 3-lane to the 4-lane of the U.S. D, the front wheel part of the Plaintiff’s driving, who proceeded to the 2-lane of the 2-lane at the time, was sent to the 3-lane of the U.S. P. car, and had the Plaintiff go to the road (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury to the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion, etc. due to the instant accident.

3 The defendant is an insurer of the comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the defendant vehicle.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff’s negligence, without wearing a safety cap, is negligent in driving otobs without wearing the safety cap. Since the Plaintiff’s negligence caused the expansion of damages due to the instant accident, the Defendant’s negligence is limited to 80%.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited in consideration of these circumstances, since the plaintiff failed to find out the defendant's vehicle in the course due to the error that the plaintiff neglected his duty at the time of Jeonju and caused the accident of this case.

The instant accident occurred when the Defendant’s vehicle was changed from the first three lanes to the second two lanes without notifying the change of the lanes due to direction, etc., and the time when the Defendant’s vehicle changed the lanes to the second two lanes is right right immediately after the Plaintiff’s Oba and the Defendant’s vehicle turn to the left, and it was difficult for the Plaintiff to anticipate and prepare for the change of the lane to the first one.