1. The Defendant’s KRW 28,697,807 as well as its related KRW 5% per annum from January 27, 2017 to October 10, 2018, and October 11, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. A. B, on January 27, 2017, driven a C high-speed car (hereinafter referred to as “high-speed car”) and driven along a two-lane road located in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, along an alternative underground road, from the right edge of the two-lane road to the opposite underground road. On the other hand, B was negligent in performing the duty of care to check whether there is a person driving a motor vehicle with a crosswalk installed and a person driving the motor vehicle due to frequent passage of people, and to check whether there is a person driving the motor vehicle using the motor vehicle, and to check whether there is a duty of care to reduce speed and prevent the accident in advance. However, even if there was a duty of care to check whether there was a person driving the motor vehicle at the crosswalk installed and a person driving the motor vehicle due to frequent passage of people, by negligent occupational negligence, found the plaintiff driving the crosswalk at the right edge of the motor vehicle in the direction of running the motor vehicle and operated it late.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as salt pans, tensions, franchisium, and franchisium, which require approximately 12 weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident.

C. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the above B regarding the automobile.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 3, Eul evidence 2 and Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above legal basis for liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle caused by the accident in this case.

B. The limitation of liability: (a) according to the evidence mentioned above and the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff has a functional obstacle not to use the signal apparatus at the bar, and the plaintiff erred in governance with a crosswalk that does not have a signal apparatus in the state of drinking, and the plaintiff's mistake is deemed to have caused damages due to the accident in this case, so it shall be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate, but the degree of negligence shall be 10%.