1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,687,98 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 24, 2015 to September 7, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C around 21:45 on May 24, 2015, 2015, hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”)

2) The crossing of the F Hospital located in the Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan City Doro 43-gil 21 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant intersection”).

) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s E-bababa (hereinafter “Plaintiff E-babababababababababababababababababababababababababasts on the other side of the 5-lane, where the left-hand turn signal is changed from the 4-lane to the 3-lane in the opposite direction of the mastabababababa

) The front part of the Defendant vehicle conflict with the front part of the Defendant vehicle’s right-hand part (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from an injury, such as the pellley, the pellley, the pellley, the cerebral cerebral cerebral dystrophy, and the laveral dystropha

3) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 3, and the images of Eul's 2 and 4,

B. 1) According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, was injured by the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring any special circumstance, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle. 2) The defendant, as the defendant, who passed the intersection of this case in violation of the plaintiff's suspension signal and passed the intersection of this case in accordance with the new subparagraph, was unable to expect the plaintiff's vehicle to pass through the intersection of this case and go to the left-hand vehicle due to the violation of the plaintiff's name, and the plaintiff's vehicle could not have discovered the plaintiff's vehicle to go to the intersection of this case, and therefore, it was not possible to find the plaintiff's

The driver of a sprink and the driver of the defendant vehicle shall also be an intern in accordance with the new subparagraph.