1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 3, 2015, at around 11:15, while under the influence of alcohol at a 0.053% of alcohol alcohol level, F driven a G-free car (hereinafter “HVL125 vehicle”) and proceed to turn to the left at the right by driving a road one way in front of the entrance of the dong village located in the Dong-dong Eup Eup/Gu in Jin-si in Jin-si, Jin-si, by leading a one-lane to the center line at the front of the Dong-dong village. On the other hand, the Plaintiff driven the opposite lane to the front part of the HVL125 motorcycle that the Plaintiff driven (hereinafter “instant accident”), and due to the accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as blood transfusion, etc. under the influence of alcohol level (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for a sea-going vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of driving a melting the central line while under the influence of alcohol by F, the defendant, who is the insurer, is liable to compensate for the damage to the property spirit suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accident.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking into account the Plaintiff’s negligence, but according to the factual basis as seen earlier, the instant accident occurred while a sea driver was frighting to the central line while under the influence of alcohol, and thus it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff was negligent in the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. Moreover, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone alone was negligent in performing the Defendant’s duty of care

It is insufficient to recognize the circumstances that the defendant did not wear a safety cap properly, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Scope of liability for damages.