1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,171,328 to the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from December 19, 2013 to October 25, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) C is a DNA vehicle around December 19, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). D around December 14, 2013

) FFF FF FF FF vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff FF vehicle”) driven by the Plaintiff while driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle along a two-lane road in front of the EM and changing his/her route into a two-lane;

) The left side part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as satise, tensions, etc., due to the instant accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle. 【Ground of recognition’s absence of dispute, Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 2 and 3

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was injured due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle. (2) The Defendant, on April 23, 2014, paid the Plaintiff KRW 1,600,000 as compensation for damages caused by the instant accident, and agreed not to compensate for damages any longer, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it goes against the validity of the said written lawsuit agreement.

Although evidence No. 1 was presented as evidence that conforms to the defendant's above argument that there was an agreement to bring an action, No. 1 was merely a copy of the evidence No. 1, and there is no evidence to prove that there was an original as evidence No. 1 and the original was genuine.

In the end, the evidence No. 1 cannot be used as evidence because it has no admissibility, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize it.

Therefore, the defendant's defense prior to the merits is without merit.

2. The scope of liability for damages is below.