1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,204,980 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from September 22, 2014 to August 18, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The recognition of the Plaintiff, on September 22, 2014, conflicts between the instant vehicle and the freight vehicle parked on the front side of the road located in Masan-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant vehicle”), while the Plaintiff was traveling along a driving vehicle on the driving vehicle of a driving school (C; hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident.” The Plaintiff suffered from the instant accident, such as the fluoral fluor, the fluoral fluoral fluoral and the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral, the fluoral fluoral fluoral and the fluoral fluoral fluoral fluoral flus

The plaintiff is F's life, and the defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the owner G of the instant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 3, 4, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, the result of the commission of physical examination to the head of the Korean High University Uniform Hospital at this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found in the establishment of the liability for damages, the driver of the instant vehicle is aware that the Plaintiff, who was on board the instant vehicle, did not discover a vehicle parked on the street due to negligence despite the duty of care to drive the vehicle in a way that does not conflict with the parked vehicle on the street by taking into account the front side well, thereby causing such injury to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant, who is a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance company of the instant motor vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the instant accident.

C. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s failure to wear safety belts at the time of the instant accident can be acknowledged in light of the description of No. 1 on the limitation of liability.

In light of the parts and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury caused by the instant accident, the developments leading up to boarding the instant vehicle, the place of the accident, and the type of the accident, etc., it is reasonable to limit the Defendant’s liability to 90% in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff’s partial claim is complete.