1. The Defendant’s KRW 80,714,640 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 30, 2012 to May 18, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, around 01:04, on August 30, 2012, driven a C rocketing car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded with one lane between the two-lanes on the ground level in the World Cup No. Round-dong, Daejeon U.S., and made a left-hand turn in violation of the signal, and caused the Plaintiff to suffer from the injury, such as an injury of the Plaintiff’s Dal-Wurd car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), which was directly located in the two-lanes of the monthly World Cup Underground Road and the three-lanes of the Plaintiff’s driver’s vehicle, while making a left-hand turn in violation of the signal.

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 12, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. (1) The Defendant asserts that the mistake of driving a speed of 116 km per hour under the influence of alcohol at the time of the accident contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damage. However, the Defendant does not have a duty of care to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident by predicting the left-hand turn from which the vehicle operating on the access road is not allowed by the Plaintiff, and driving the vehicle in the right-hand turn at the right-hand turn at the time of the accident to the point of time, and to prevent the occurrence of the accident.

Therefore, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff neglected the duty of Jeonju (see, e.g., Daejeon District Court Decision 2013Da19523, Nov. 1, 2013); and the Plaintiff’s fault proceeding in excess of the restricted speed under the influence of alcohol.

Even if there is a proximate causal relationship between such mistake and the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

(2) However, evidence A No. 12-2