1. The Defendant’s successor intervenor KRW 3,454,616 as well as 5% per annum from April 18, 2014 to May 19, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The establishment of liability: (a) On April 18, 2014, the Plaintiff was the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) on May 27, 2015, the Defendant transferred the entire business of the Defendant’s successor and transferred the rights and obligations under the said insurance contract to the Defendant’s successor on May 27, 2015, and at the same time transferred the rights and obligations under the said insurance contract to the Plaintiff’s successor, and the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Defendant’s succession of the previous purport due to the instant accident, comprehensively taking account of the following: (a) the first top top top top top part of the EIsttop car (hereinafter “Asttop car”) that was trying to be a U.S. driver beyond the median line at the opposite lane in the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding; and (b) the Plaintiff was liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages incurred to the Defendant’s heir due to the instant accident.

B. (1) In light of the background of the instant accident, etc. as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, who had driven the first lane of the said three-lanes, was unable to predict that a sea vehicle would attempt an illegal internship beyond the median line at a place other than the U.S. region, and did not have any special circumstances to deem that it was possible to predict that the instant accident occurred. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have any responsibility for the occurrence of the instant accident.

(2) As to this, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor asserted that there was negligence by the Plaintiff, while neglecting the duty of the front-time watch, but did not have any evidence to acknowledge it.

The defendant succeeding intervenor also argued that the plaintiff was negligent in driving on the three-lanes of the above road while driving on the off-to-road. However, the defendant succeeding intervenor is also a motorcycle.