1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,987,00,007 and its related amount are 5% per annum from September 22, 2016 to March 24, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact 1) The person who was named in the name of the deceased is the vehicle on August 20, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as “the vehicle in the name of the deceased”) around 05:00.

) A driver of Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”) used a two-lane road in front of the exit area of 43-5 additional digital group 43-5 additional digital group area of Geumcheon-gu (hereinafter “Seoul”), along the two-lanes from the Jinsan basin to the Guro-dong gate, used a mountain to the pedestrian red signal and shocked the Plaintiff who dried the crosswalk (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion and the pellet, etc.

3) A hazard vehicle is an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 45 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, in which the owner is unknown, immediately after the instant accident occurred. 4) The Defendant is an insurer entrusted with the business of guaranteeing motor vehicle accident compensation under Article 30(1) of the same Act.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 3, 5-7 evidence, Eul 3 evidence (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of compensation for damages arising from the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Business.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff, has been negligent in using a mountain in the condition of pedestrian signal with a view to using a new wall, the view of which is limited; and (b) such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, the Plaintiff’s fault ratio is deemed 50% in light of various circumstances shown in the pleading.

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case three years after the date of the accident of this case, the plaintiff's right to claim compensation for damages has expired with the lapse of the extinctive prescription.

The fact that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on December 21, 2015, which was three years after August 20, 2012, which was the date of the instant accident, is apparent in the record.

However, the defendant on March 7, 2013.