1. The Defendant’s KRW 142,847,828 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual 5% from April 5, 2014 to November 25, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) a car with a amburged from C in the state of alcohol at around 02:45 on April 5, 2014, while under the influence of alcohol content of 0.115% (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) On the two-lane road of the front direction E in Scheon City D, driving at a speed of about 80 km from the border to the steel source, while under the influence of alcohol, the steering of the vehicle was driven by the front part of the Defendant vehicle for preventing the entry of the vehicle installed on the side of the road in the same direction as that of the wind, and the Plaintiff, who was on the front direction of the Defendant vehicle, was driven by the Defendant vehicle, was faced with the injury, such as the frames at the bottom of the right edge of the right edge (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, an insurance company related to the defendant's vehicle, is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the Plaintiff, as well as the driver B, who is the higher-class person working in the same unit, drink alcohol together with the driver B, and was at the same time driven in the state of alcohol 0.115% by blood alcohol concentration, and was erroneous in failing to urge B to drive safely; and (b) the Plaintiff’s error was caused by the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 75% (the Plaintiff’s liability 25%) by taking this into account in determining the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not wear a safety belt, but the evidence No. 6 cannot be used as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the evidence. Since the plaintiff raised an appeal against the pain of the leg because the leg part was kis on the body of the vehicle, the plaintiff gets her to the leg part and the safety belt.