1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,140,017 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from November 24, 2010 to November 1, 2013, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 20:30 on November 24, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) B:

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s vehicle’s front and rear distance is yellow signal (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

(c) A driver of a motor vehicle who intends to pass through an intersection by using the signal at the intersection of limitation of liability, because the signal at the intersection is fixed to a stop signal at the intersection or to a stop signal at the intersection, in violation of the signal, and therefore, the traffic signal at the intersection has a duty of care to check whether a motor vehicle has already entered the intersection at the left or right, even if the traffic signal is in operation in compliance with the traffic signal, and to keep the attitude to prevent accidents by driving, etc. while looking at the movement of such a motor vehicle, if there is such a vehicle.

(See Supreme Court Decision 95Da29369 delivered on October 13, 1995). The foregoing case’s health care unit and health unit are acknowledged by the evidence mentioned above.