1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from June 2, 2014 to February 24, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 06:59 on June 2, 2014, B: (a) a vehicle on the number-free (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”)

(B) The lower part of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was driven by the Plaintiff, while driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of that vehicle due to the negligence that the Plaintiff, who had been in the atmosphere of a fugitive signal, neglected to perform his duty of chilling on the road near the fugitive Dong-dong Scattering (hereinafter

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

In regard to this, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not fasten the safety belt, but it is not possible to recklessly conceal that the plaintiff did not fasten the safety belt, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and there is no reason to limit the defendant's liability.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 3, and Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Scope of damages.

A. The Plaintiff claimed KRW 9,247,931, which claimed that the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the salt pane in the instant accident and suffered from the disability. 2) Appraisal is nothing more than using such knowledge or experience as an auxiliary means to determine a certain matter if the court requires special knowledge and experience in determining a matter. As such, in a damages lawsuit, where there are several appraisal and assessment against the same fact, the court may either employ one of them or recognize facts based on only one of them, unless it violates the rules of experience or logical rules.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da11954 delivered on February 28, 2008, etc.). 3 returned to the instant case, the body re-examination results and the fact inquiry results with respect to the president of an affiliated university.