1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,422,042 as well as 5% per annum from January 1, 2016 to July 22, 2020 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D rash car under the influence of alcohol on December 31, 2015 at around 00:20,000 and at least 0.188% of alcohol content in blood (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(C) A driving company, at the entrance of the apartment in the city of 1,000, proceeded along two-lanes from the direction of the intersection to the patrol fire-fighting intersection. Since there was a vehicle temporarily stopping on the right side of the front side, C engaged in the driving of a motor vehicle has a duty of care to properly see the front side and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right of the motor vehicle and to prevent the accident from occurring due to the failure of the accident. However, C is due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driving company (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) standing in the two-lane by neglecting it.

3) The Defendant 1 suffered injury to the Defendant 1’s left-hand side of the Defendant 2: (a) the Plaintiff, who moved from the Defendant 1’s front-hand side to the entrance and exit door; and (b) the Plaintiff, who did not have two open addresses, due to cerebral routs, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 and 4 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. However, according to each of the above evidence, although C was grossly negligent in driving under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident, C was also at the time of the accident, it was erroneous for the Plaintiff to stop the Plaintiff’s vehicle with a large width in the parking-stop prohibition zone (intersections and crosswalks) in order to see the use of the motor vehicle during the night-time hours. Such error was caused by the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, C’s responsibility is limited to 80%.

2. The scope of liability for damages is below.