1. The Defendant’s KRW 106,912,830 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 9, 2015 to November 1, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B is a CAF car under the influence of alcohol at around 04:20 on March 27, 2015, while under the influence of alcohol 0.085% of alcohol content. (hereinafter “AF car”).

) A driver of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, along with his driving, conflicts into the front part of the vehicle in front of the vehicle, while proceeding about 70 km from the calendar to the alternate station along a three-lane distance from the calendar station of Gangnam-gu, Seoul, with the direction of the vehicle at a speed of about 80 km, D in contravention of the signal. B is a G-si (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”) operated by the F, which continued to proceed on the left side from the right side of the vehicle at the speed of the vehicle.

(B) The left-hand part of the vehicle, which conflict with the front part of the vehicle before the left-hand part, and conflicted with the rear wheels classification on the left-hand side of the I MT truck operated by H while the Defendant vehicle is sealed to the right-hand side of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, a passenger of the Defendant vehicle, suffered injury to the Defendant vehicle following the increase in the number of times.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle, and is Samsung Fire, Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tsung Fire”).

(4) The Plaintiff received 26 million won (principal 23,524,190 damages for delay 2,475,810 won) from Samsung Fire and withdrawn a lawsuit against Samsung Fire.

B. 1) According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle. 2) In this regard, the defendant did not have a duty of care to anticipate and prepare for the entry of the other party in violation of the signal, and the defendant did not have any negligence in relation to the above accident to F, the driver of the defendant vehicle, so long as such principle of trust applies. However, the defendant was killed or injured.