1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,165,00,000 per annum for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 2, 2015 to November 29, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The fact of recognition 1) C is a DNA car at around 06:30 on May 2, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver, while driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle at the speed of 90km/h or more than 60km/h or more than 95km/h in the direction of a bank on the E side, two-lanes in the direction of a company bank in two-lanes from the two-lanes from the two-lanes to the two-lanes from the two-lanes from the two-lanes to the two-lanes, the driver, who first entered the said intersection (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”).

) The upper right part of the Defendant’s vehicle shocked into the front part of the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as scambling, etc., due to the instant accident.

3 The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. As seen earlier, at the time of the instant accident, traffic control by on-and-off signal was carried out on all directions at the time of the instant accident. However, the instant accident occurred by the Defendant’s vehicle entering the said intersection without sufficiently examining the surrounding areas while temporarily stopping and slowly driving before entering the intersection and at least 30 km/h of the speed limit, and by shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle that entered the said intersection.

Although the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of Defendant 1, the following circumstances are considered: (a) it is difficult to view the Plaintiff’s vehicle as having performed his/her duty of temporary stop, driving, and drinking in the process of the accident; and (b) it appears that the Plaintiff’s failure to wear a safety level is likely to increase the damage.