1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part demanding payment of KRW 3,020,990 shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is a Fpoter car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 01:00 on September 23, 2014.

) While driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle, the three-lanes around the 446-1 pet reservoir in the luxa-dong, Nowon-do, in the direction of the luxa-dong, along the two-lanes of the luxa-si, the Plaintiff A was driven by the Plaintiff A while driving a two-lane in the direction of the luxa-do. (hereinafter “instant accident”). The instant accident is referred to as “the instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered from the injury, such as a pellley, etc.

3) Plaintiffs B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D are the siblings of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 6, and evidence 11 (including partial numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

The defendant argued that the accident of this case was force majeure since the accident of this case occurred due to the mistake, such as the plaintiff Gap's driver's uniform and flabing, etc., while moving off the 6-lane headlight to the opposite direction of proceeding on the road set back across the six-lane road. However, considering the circumstances such as the driver's error of operating the defendant's vehicle beyond the limited speed, the data submitted by the defendant alone cannot be viewed as force majeure, and therefore, the defendant's written exemption letter is rejected.

C. The Plaintiff, at night, was also at the six-lane distance from which the vehicle is running in high speed, set up a stoba and set up a road, and was not at the road. The Plaintiff’s negligence was also the cause of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s negligence was considered.