1. The Defendant paid KRW 12,362,326 to the Plaintiff KRW 5% per annum from July 25, 2012 to August 21, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 12:20 on July 25, 2012, B, the fact of recognition that the car is “Defendant vehicle” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”).

(C) The Plaintiff’s driver’s act of driving his vehicle, driving his vehicle and driving his vehicle in Ansan-si along the three-lanes of the upper 4-lane road from the center to the center of the center of the center of the area of the road in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff’s act of driving the vehicle in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction of the road in the direction

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including branch numbers if there is a paper number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that there was negligence that the cause of the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to live well, even though it was possible for the Plaintiff to anticipate the entry of the three-lanes into the intersection in order to make a right-hand into the bank of Ansan Tax, while proceeding in the four-lanes. However, considering the fact that the three-lanes and the four-lanes immediately preceding the arrival of the instant accident at the intersection, the right-hand side of the two-lanes are separated by the separate salary, and the direction of the instant accident is separated by the separate salary, and the location of the instant accident is an intersection, which is the place where the overtaking is prohibited for overtaking, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have a duty of care to drive the vehicle going into the three-lanes along the right-hand side of the two-lanes, and thus, the Defendant’s allegation is without merit.

Therefore, it is true.