1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 51,816,400 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 15, 2011 to January 13, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) B is the Defendant vehicle at C taxison around 17:50 on July 15, 2011 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) The Plaintiff’s right-hand bridge crossings the right-hand side from the front side of the Defendant vehicle to the front side of the Defendant vehicle, while driving a three-distance road at Jeju, from the front side of the E-dong office to the F apartment room (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury of the Plaintiff’s right-hand pelpelleting pelvis.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle. C. 1) Negligence offsetting the Plaintiff’s liability, which was negligent in failing to properly examine the movement of the vehicle driving on the road, and such negligence of the Plaintiff was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

The rate of negligence of the plaintiff shall be 15% in consideration of the fact that a house without distinction between a roadway and a sidewalk is a road.

2) In the event that the injury was caused or expanded by competition between the harmful act of limiting liability caused by the pain after trauma and the harmful act caused by the victim's side, even though the factors of the victim's side are irrelevant to the victim's causes, such as the risk of physical talented cattle or disease, in light of the form and degree of the disease in question, etc., if compensating the perpetrator for the whole amount of the damage is contrary to the principle of fairness, the court may apply the principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation and take into account the factors of the victim's side who contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3162, Oct. 14, 2010). The Plaintiff is obliged to take into account the degree of the victim's ability to take a part in the right-hand bridge and receive outpatient treatment.