1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant does not exist beyond KRW 928,867.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is the driver of the Category C vehicle (the plaintiff's vehicle from the following) and the defendant is the driver of the Category D vehicle (the defendant's vehicle from the following).

B. On September 13, 2015, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle, and entered the new ICT (e.g., one-lane) in the northwest Line; (b) followed the Plaintiff’s balke without any justifiable reason; (c) obstructed the course by delaying the speed, thereby passing the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the side.

C. The Plaintiff caused contact with the Defendant’s vehicle due to the negligence that the Defendant did not yield, although he knew or could have sufficiently known that he would be overtaking (the subsequent accident).

The amount of repair cost equivalent to KRW 1,857,735 was exceeded by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Evidence Nos. 1 through 6, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the occurrence of liability for damages occurred, the instant accident interferes with the course of the Defendant’s vehicle without any justifiable reason, and caused the Plaintiff’s negligence that the Defendant knew or could have known of being overtaken due to traffic offense.

The Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for all damages incurred by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

B. Scope of liability for damages ① Repair cost of KRW 1,857,735 (2) The Defendant seeks reimbursement of KRW 2,186,740 and KRW 5,000,000 for medical expenses under the premise that the Defendant sustained injuries due to the instant accident.

Considering the date of the first medical treatment, the date and date of the outbreak of the medical certificate submitted by the Defendant, and the degree of shock at the time of the accident, it is insufficient to recognize that the aforementioned evidence alone was the same as the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

This part of the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

C. The Defendant’s limitation of liability was overtaken in the zone where the overtaking was prohibited, but the Plaintiff’s course without any special reason.