1. The Defendant’s KRW 76,92,393 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 6, 2015 to August 25, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) around 19:15 on September 6, 2015, C 19:15:

) A driver, driving on the road front of the Songpa-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government 71 Bank along the speed of about 25 km from the right edge to the right edge high school. On the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the crosswalk in the front side was opened to the right edge from the left edge of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front edge of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered injury to the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion on the left-hand side due to the instant accident.

3) The defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle (based on recognition). The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 2, 7, 10 (including

B. According to the above facts, 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. The defendant asserts that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability in consideration of the plaintiff's negligence, since he crosses the road without paying attention to the operation of the vehicle, the defendant's judgment as to the limitation of liability is based on the plaintiff's negligence.

The instant accident is an accident that the Plaintiff walked on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction to cross the crosswalk with a yellow light signal, etc., and the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle makes a statement entirely different from the fact that the Plaintiff was making an accident while crossinging the road without permission from the right side, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have neglected to drive the vehicle on the right side (the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle is deemed to have been driving at the time when he was not driving almost old). The driver of the Defendant’s vehicle seems to have taken hand to make it possible for the Plaintiff to easily see the driver of the vehicle driving on the road, and therefore