1. On July 7, 2015, at around 16:29, traffic accidents occurred on roads near the Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Port.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The non-party belonging to the Korea Tour Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s side driver”).

(A) On July 7, 2015, at around 16:29, Category B (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-Motor Vehicle”) is:

(ii) the Defendant’s Craney (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”) which was driven by the Defendant’s driving and directed directly at the right-hand left-hand turn at the intersection where signals, etc. are installed in three-lanes in front of air traffic in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire-Fighting Zone.

) The front part and shock of the case (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

) Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury, such as the diversification and closure of fingers, and the Defendant’s vehicle was destroyed. 2) The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s events.

3) From around the date of the instant accident to September 8, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a total of KRW 7,164,480 for the treatment the Defendant received, and KRW 2,00,000 for the damages of KRW 7,164,480 for the treatment the Defendant received. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute between the parties, and Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (where there are various numbers,

Except as otherwise expressly indicated:

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is liable for damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

C. The limitation of liability is limited, however, the instant accident occurred at the time in which the view of the front side is secured on clear weather, and it was caused by the failure to detect the Defendant’s vehicle in front of that part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle when it was manufactured. In this case, if the Defendant’s vehicle in front of that part is also secured, the Defendant’s vehicle in front of that part also has a duty to see the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that had already been going to the left and to ensure its safety, but is not neglected to do so.