1. The Defendant’s KRW 64,081,056 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 6, 2006 to January 10, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) B A car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

A) On January 5, 2006, the driver drivened the above vehicle at around 10:08, and brought the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked in Seongdong-gu Seoul, Seongdong-gu, Seongdong-gu, Seoul and brought the vehicle to stop (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as neutronical bale, conical signboard escape certificate, etc.

3) On September 18, 1997, the Plaintiff registered obstacles to the second grade 2, 1997, and on November 16, 2010, around 10:14, the labor ability loss rate for the said obstacles is 17%. 4) On November 16, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) around 10:14, the driver of the Plaintiff’s auxiliary vehicle (hereinafter “participating”) temporarily removed the vehicle from the balk to the balk, while the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle temporarily opened the vehicle from the balk to the balk, and led the vehicle (CSMM 3 vehicles) driven by the Plaintiff.

(5) The intervenor is an insurer which has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle of the defendant with respect to the vehicle of the intervenor. [Grounds for recognition] The intervenor is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the vehicle of the defendant. [The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 50 evidence (including partial numbers, the fact inquiry about the D community service center, the result of the fact inquiry about the replacement of the body with respect

B. 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.

(Ex post facto accident is very insignificant and the injury level was continuing due to the accident in this case, and it seems that the plaintiff did not affect the plaintiff's damage in this case. Therefore, the intervenor is not liable to compensate for the damage in this case).

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not fasten the safety belt on the ground of the plaintiff's injury, etc., but the defendant's responsibility is limited because it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff did not fasten the safety belt.