1. The Defendant’s KRW 43,175,788 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 4, 2014 to January 24, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On February 4, 2014, Nonparty B driving a vehicle on February 4, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) In order to make a right-hand route to the free market area while proceeding with the first line among the second line of the second line of the C C in the Jinju City, the second line has been changed to the second line, and the second line has been proceeding with the second line (hereinafter “the instant bus”).

(2) The Plaintiff was a passenger on board the instant bus, and the Plaintiff was a passenger on board the bus in order to avoid a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle. Then, the bus was rapidly parked in the bus stop, as stated in the instant paragraph (a) and the bus was placed at the seat to get off at the bus stop, resulting in the bus pole at the center, going beyond the bus pole, and became faced with the bus pole. Around 12 weeks of the need for medical treatment, the Plaintiff was injured by an injury, such as an acute pressure frame and a dubed section, etc.

(3) The defendant is an insurance company which has concluded an insurance contract with B with respect to the defendant's vehicle. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the driver of the defendant vehicle B, who is the driver of the vehicle in this case, shall confirm the existence of another vehicle in the course of making a bypass at the location of the accident in this case, and enter the place while maintaining safety distance, etc., which caused the accident in this case by neglecting his duty of care to prevent the traffic accident in advance, and rapidly changing the vehicle line. Thus, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the

C. According to the overall purport of the film and pleading in the evidence No. 4 as to the limitation of liability, the Plaintiff also recognized the fact that the bus occurred on the job to lower the bus while operating the bus, and the Plaintiff’s negligence contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident.