1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,384,970 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 6, 2014 to May 12, 2016, and the following.

The defendant, at around 17:05 on May 6, 2014, driven a bicycle and got off the body wheel of the plaintiff who dried the crosswalk from Seoul to the front side of the water source to the front side of the water level, neglected to perform the duty of front-time watch, thereby getting the body wheel of the plaintiff who dried the crosswalk from the direction towards the front side of the water level.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered from the injury to the left-hand alley of the Gan-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma-Ma (hereinafter “instant accident”).

[Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 and 12, and the driver of a bicycle who is responsible for the overall purport of the pleadings, when crossing the road using a crosswalk, shall get out of the bicycle and walk the bicycle (Article 13-2 (6) of the Road Traffic Act). However, the defendant does not get out of the bicycle, and operated the bicycle, and caused the accident of this case due to negligence that caused the driver's negligence of neglecting the duty to stop on the crosswalk, and therefore, the plaintiff is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the accident of this case.

The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited, since the defendant's waiting to the pedestrian signal in front of the crosswalk in this case and the pedestrian signal is on-and-off, the plaintiff did not look at the direction of proceeding and did not run against the bicycle and the bicycle.

However, the background of the instant accident is identical to that recognized in the facts of recognition, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion that is premised on the background of the accident cannot be accepted.

The Plaintiff’s personal information regarding the scope of damages: The Plaintiff asserts that the maximum working age should be recognized by May 6, 2017, when three years have elapsed since the date of the accident, as the family register, the maximum working age of 12% of the permanent disability due to the E-born, women’s residual disability, and labor disability loss rate in the public announcement book, (i.e., the rate of loss of labor ability), (ii) 12% of the total working age due to the click disability assessment table.

However, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.