1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from October 6, 2013 to July 14, 2015 to Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 1,505,950 and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant’s vehicle for D and E taxa (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”)

2) On October 6, 2013, D, while under the influence of alcohol level 0.063% on blood alcohol level, D, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Ma1”) at around 06:58 on October 6, 2013 and moving back the distance of the tax office located in the 1-2 Singuan City, Singu, Singu, Singu, Singu, from the room of the sports center in the Gungu, to the room of the head of the Gungu, and without wearing the safety appearance at the left-hand level (the blood alcohol level unclear) under the left-hand left-hand left-hand left-hand without wearing the safety appearance under the influence of alcohol (the blood alcohol level is unclear) from the f.o. Hatoba (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driven by the Defendant’s driver’s seat level on the side side of the Defendant’s vehicle and then suffered the Plaintiff’s dog back to the front side side of the Gungu.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). [The ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of all pleadings]

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiff A due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred on the wind that the plaintiff Gap should proceed to the left at the center of the road because it violated the traffic method to the opposite side of the road and went to the outside. The plaintiff's argument that the accident of this case was caused exclusively by the plaintiff A's negligence on the shock side, but the above accident circumstances and the above D were prosecuted for the traffic accident under drinking conditions as above, it is not accepted.

However, at the time, the Plaintiff A was negligent in neglecting the duty of pre-driving while driving under the influence of alcohol and failing to wear a safety cap, and such error is an important cause for the occurrence of the instant accident.