1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's lawsuit as to the part of the claim extended in the trial shall be dismissed.

3...

(1) On November 6, 2012, B recognized the occurrence of the liability for damages (1) B, while driving C Racing a car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving the two-lanes of the three-lanes from the 78th parallel parallel, as the Olympic Winter of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Fire Prevention Zone, the two-lanes of the three-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes as the Fire Prevention Zone of Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), the back of the right side of the Defendant vehicle by negligence, which neglected the maintenance of the Defendant vehicle, was able to take hand to the left side of the

As a result, the Defendant’s vehicle was re-confisced to the Central Separation Zone.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) The Plaintiff was seated on the Defendant’s vehicle, but was suffering from the plekele, etc. due to the instant accident.

(3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract for the defendant vehicle.

【In light of the fact that there has been no dispute, the entries or images of Gap's 1 through 6 (including the number of branches), and the purport of the whole pleading, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of defendant's vehicle.

The defendant asserts that limitation of liability should be limited on the ground of the plaintiff's inheritance.

In the light of the good faith principle or equity, if an operator of a vehicle permits a passenger to board the vehicle for the convenience and interest of the passenger without receiving any consideration, and the passenger receives such a provision for his/her convenience and interest, the amount of compensation may be reduced if it is deemed considerably unreasonable in light of the following: (a) the purpose of operation; (b) the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator; (c) the background leading up to his/her participation in the vehicle; and (d) the purpose and active nature of the demand for the accompanying; and (b) the perpetrator’s liability equivalent to the general traffic accident may be imposed on the vehicle involved in the accident, but only the fact that the driver merely moved in the vehicle

Supreme Court Decision 98Da53141 delivered on February 9, 1999.