1. The Defendant’s KRW 826,548 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 2, 2012 to July 15, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. B, around 19:20 on March 1, 2012, driving a C E-V vehicle of driving (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and going ahead at the intersection where a yellow flashing light, etc. was installed in front of the front e-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-con-out (hereinafter “the instant accident”), the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a fluor, including the cat fat at the front e-de-con-con-con-con-de-con-con-de-con-de-con-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de-de

B. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

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

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

B. As to this, the Defendant alleged that there was no negligence of the Defendant’s driver on the ground that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s negligence since the Defendant’s vehicle entered the intersection at a rapid speed without yielding the course to the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the intersection at the time of the accident, even though the Defendant’s vehicle was driving at the time of the accident, it could be recognized that the Defendant’s driver violated the above safety obligation even though the Defendant’s duty of care to conduct a temporary stop at the intersection or at a higher speed, even if the Defendant’s vehicle had a duty of care to conduct a driving by taking into account the said safety obligation while entering the intersection at the time of the accident. Therefore, the negligence of the Defendant’s driver is also recognized.

Therefore, the defendant's argument is without merit.