1. Paragraph 1 of the order of the first instance judgment, including the plaintiff's claim expanded in the trial, shall be amended as follows:

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is the victim of the instant accident as described in the following (b), and the Defendant is the E-vehicle owned by D (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) On June 29, 2009, the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to A. (2) around 19:25, 2009, driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving it into one lane in front of the 144-lane of Songpa-gu Seoul, Songpa-gu, Seoul, for a locking comprehensive sports complex room located on the 5-lane of a locking-out complex. At the same time, the Plaintiff shocked the Plaintiff, who opened a crosswalk without signal lights to the left side from the right side of the Defendant’s driving direction (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as brain collisions, etc. due to cerebrovascular, which had no head open address.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images as to Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Eul's evidence of subparagraph 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

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

C. Whether the liability is limited or not, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was negligent by building the crosswalk without signal lights at the time of the instant accident and failing to walk safely. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the Plaintiff governance the crosswalk set off from the taxi parked on the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle in the direction of the instant accident. At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff, other than the Plaintiff, was also another pedestrian who parked on the said crosswalk from the Plaintiff’s side, but it can be recognized that the Defendant passed the said crosswalk without signal lights by driving at a different speed. Since the time of the instant accident, the time of the accident occurred, and thus, the Defendant’s driver, as the driver of the Defendant, would have paid full attention, would have come from the taxi.