1. The Defendant’s KRW 9,810,400 as well as 5% per annum from June 13, 2016 to October 27, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. A claim for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(1) The Defendant is the owner of the vehicle C (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) Around 17:40 minutes from June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle and operated the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the E in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun. However, the Defendant’s vehicle operating the first lane caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) leading to the Plaintiff’s shock in the course of overtaking the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2 through 5, and Eul evidence 7 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of the right to claim damages and the right to claim damages, the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident, on the ground that the Defendant, who is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, on the following grounds: (a) by failing to comply with the duty and safety of the first vehicle while operating the first vehicle at a rapid speed in order to overtake it; and (b) by failing to comply with the duty and safety of the first vehicle while operating the first vehicle at a rapid

However, in the event that the plaintiff operated a large vehicle exceeding the road width, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 80% because he was negligent in failing to fulfill his duty of care, even though he had been required to obtain a operating permit and not to obstruct the passage of other vehicles.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the defendant's vehicle was in driving one lane normally, and the plaintiff's vehicle was faced with the defendant's vehicle while the plaintiff's vehicle was driving the first line with the driver's vehicle, so there is no responsibility for the defendant's vehicle in the accident of this case.

However, as seen above, the plaintiff's previous vehicle is the same.