1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,974,531 as well as its annual rate from March 2, 2015 to July 5, 2017, and the next day.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) CMW passenger cars around 12:35 March 2, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver driving his/her vehicle and left the front road of Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City along a two-lane distance from the northwest of the Jam-gu, to turn to the left, and then changed the course to the right side at the point of accident. In such a case, a person engaged in driving his/her vehicle has a duty of care to operate a direction direction, etc. prior to the change of the vehicle line, give notice of the change in the course, and to change the vehicle line in the manner of the front and rear left-hand traffic. Nevertheless, the person engaged in driving his/her vehicle was negligent in changing the vehicle line to the right side, and due to the negligence of changing the vehicle line to the right side, the Plaintiff E-Skib Obki (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”).

) The front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked to the right part of the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle. B is an accident that the Plaintiff suffered by the Plaintiff, by negligence, i.e., pulverization of the left-hand executives (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. The background of the accident is shown in the attached Form No. 1. 2.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 7 through 11, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) or video, and 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.

The defendant asserts that since the accident in this case occurred at the place where the change of course could have been possible, the plaintiff also neglected to drive the concession, so it should be considered in calculating the amount of damages.

The two-lanes in the accident of this case and the one-lane in the accident of this case are not divided into real lines, so the change of course of the defendant vehicle itself.