1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,504,646 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 27, 2014 to July 21, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) as follows: B is the C Passenger Car around 16:40 on September 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant Passenger Car”).

(E) drive and turn to the left from the right edge of “E” in front of “E” in “E” in “E” at the right edge in the Priju City to the right edge of the U.S. Priju City. At that end, the F Two-wheeled Automobile driven by the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff Oiba”) running from the right edge to the right edge of the U.S. Priju City.

2) The instant accident was shocked (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury to the left-hand upper pelpelle, etc.

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the Defendant’s automobile. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s 2 and 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Plaintiff asserts that the instant accident occurred due to negligence in violation of the “the first priority principle,” “the second priority principle,” and “the second priority principle,” and that the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of the plaintiff who driven in excess of normal crossing and did not perform his duty at the front of the road, and that the accident of this case occurred by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle. Thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability.

The evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the driver of the motor vehicle was not negligent in paying attention to the operation of the motor vehicle (see Article 3 subparagraph 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act).

Rather, the Defendant’s car driver also entered an intersection where traffic is not controlled, thereby checking the safety by properly examining the left and the right, and neglecting his duty of care to prevent the accident.