1. The Defendant’s KRW 21,220,038 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from February 23, 2015 to September 28, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 18:55 on February 23, 2015, C, the driver of the Grandn Cornishing Vehicle B (hereinafter referred to as the “instant Libering Vehicle”), committed a collision between the front of the road D, located at Jeju, with the front of the road located at the Folk Sea from the Folk Day to the front side of the Dong-ho Lakeing, in breach of the duty of e-mail and safety, and the front side of the Plaintiff’s Gsan PPing Vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff’s vehicle”). On the front side, C, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who is the driver of the instant Libering Vehicle, conflict with the front side of the GH vehicle, I, and J vehicle, which was in the front line, with the front side of the Folk Sea.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as the climatic and climatic base, and the climatic signboard escape certificate, etc., due to the instant accident.

피고는 가해차량의 소유자인 주식회사 해피네트웍스와 이 사건 가해차량에 대하여 자동차손해배상공제계약을 체결한 공제사업자이다.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator for the instant sea vehicles. 2) After the defendant's assertion of this case, there was no evidence that there was an occurrence of the plaintiff's forest to use the plaintiff's shoulder part, or that there was a labing, or an increase in the lab, etc., after the occurrence of the accident of this case. In light of the fact that the injury caused by the accident of this case is a light lab and the lab of the lab, the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case, or did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case. Thus, considering the fact that the plaintiff's negligence, the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case, or did not wear it properly. 2)