1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On April 5, 2014, around 20:28, the Plaintiff entered three-lanes by getting off the central line along the off the off-line primary line located in the off-west-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Daejeon with a view to getting out of the off the off-line primary line, the Plaintiff is a D vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) which has passed a shooting distance in violation of signals on the opposite lane.

1) The accident of this case was crypted on the side of Obaba (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury to the Defendant’s vehicle’s comprehensive automobile insurance contract, i.e., e., satise satise satise satise satise satise satise

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. As revealed in the facts of recognition of liability and limitation, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident, since the instant accident occurred while the Defendant was passing along the intersection in violation of the signal.

However, the plaintiff was found to have been negligent in proceeding in three-lanes while making a unreasonable internship in a place where U.S. is not allowed, and such errors contributed to the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damages. Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 50% in consideration of the above all circumstances.

In relation to the above limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the Plaintiff should additionally consider the mistake that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety cap at the time of the accident. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the result of a fact-finding commission with respect to the Daejeon Police Station alone was insufficient to find that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety cap at the time of the accident, and there is no other evidence to

2. The scope of damages shall be separate below.