1.(a)

On July 13, 2013, 00:05, the traffic accident occurred at the 33rd K&W branch Intersection in Jeju Island around 00:05.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

Facts of recognition

A. On July 13, 2013, at around 00:05, B driven a C-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-related vehicle”) and moved directly into the intersection of 33 KTW branch headquarters in the north of the Jeju-si, the Dondong-ro, the Dondong-ro, the Dondong-ro, and the Dondong-ro, the Dondong-ro, the Dondong-ro, which was directly driven into the Handon middle school bank (hereinafter “accident-related vehicle”), was turned into the Don-ro part of the Don-ro’s E-car, which was directly driven into the Don middle school bank.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff, who entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle with B, paid KRW 4,611,900 as medical expenses of the Defendant, and KRW 707,330 as medical expenses of the Defendant. On August 20, 2012, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident with respect to the rental period from August 20, 2012 to July 20, 2013.

[Reasons for Recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, 7, Eul evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the facts of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages as a whole, and the occurrence of limited liability, the plaintiff is liable for damages suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle.

However, the limitation of liability is limited to the following circumstances, which are recognized as comprehensively considering the evidence mentioned above, Eul's statements and the overall purport of oral argument in calculating the defendant's property or mental damage as the operator of the vehicle involved in the accident caused D, who is a subordinate employee, to drive the vehicle involved in the accident, and accordingly, the defendant took into account D's negligence in calculating the defendant's property or mental damage (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da652, Sept. 5, 197). In other words, the accident site of this case was on-and-off, and the yellow light light, etc. in the direction where the plaintiff vehicle proceeds, was on-and-off, and the signal light, etc. in the direction where the vehicle involved in the accident occurred is on-off.