1. The Defendant’s KRW 302,309,489 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 6, 201 to November 26, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) Nonparty B is a C Industrial Pesting Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”) owned under the influence of alcohol on December 6, 201, at around 00:15, Nonparty B, while under the influence of alcohol content 0.09%.

2) The Defendant’s vehicle was driven by driving the vehicle and driving the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section.

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

[Based on Recognition] Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 to 4, 3, 4-1 to 4, 7-1 and 2-1 to 7

B. According to the facts of occurrence of liability and the recognition of the above limitation, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., B, the Plaintiff’s dual-presidential system, is driving in order to put the Plaintiff, who was under the influence of alcohol in the state of drinking.

The accident of this case occurred, and the plaintiff did not perform his duty to promote safe driving, such as failing to stop the operation while under the influence of alcohol by the plaintiff while driving, and the plaintiff appears not to wear the safety level at the time of the accident of this case, and the plaintiff was on the bridge as a person holding the bridge on the front line, taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of this case.