1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 683,866; (b) KRW 1,750,000 to Plaintiff A; and (c) each of them, from August 8, 2017 to July 25, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) D is a vehicle E around 11:38 August 8, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(ii) Plaintiff A’s H vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) located in yellow signal on the side of the G Building and located in yellow signal two-lanes between the two-lanes while driving his/her vehicle and making a left-hand turn to the Broadcasting and Communications University from the edge of the F University at the top of the 23-lane high-speed in Gwangju Mine-gu.

3) The instant accident was shocked (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered from an injury to the climatic and climatic salt, etc., and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed and scrapped.

3) Plaintiff B is the owner of the Plaintiff vehicle, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 6, 8 through 10, Eul evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

(b) A vehicle that turn to the left at a non-protective left-hand turn shall turn to the left at the left-hand turn while keeping the vehicle from the opposite direction so that it does not interfere with the vehicle that is straight along with the vehicle travelling signal;

The facts of recognition and the evidence of the foregoing pin test revealed that D had been driving along two lanes at a speed of about 50 km/h of speed in the opposite direction prior to the entry of the Defendant vehicle into the intersection, and even though D had sufficiently predicted the collision with the Plaintiff’s driving vehicle where the Defendant vehicle would turn to the left, it is recognized that D had made a left-hand turn even though it was possible to expect the collision with the Plaintiff’s driving vehicle where the Defendant vehicle would turn to the left.

Therefore, D is negligent in failing to comply with the duty of care to prevent interference with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that proceeds from the opposite direction while making a left-hand turn, so the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is the damage suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.