1. B. on July 31, 2015, at least 14:00, the apartment house in front of the interesting high school located in the interesting sea-Eup in the North-gu, Chungcheongnam-si at the port;

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff’s vehicle B Poke owned by D and D (hereinafter “this case’s sea vehicle”).

A) The insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the automobile, and the Defendant is C complainted vehicle (hereinafter “instant damaged vehicle”).

(2) On July 14, 2015, at the time of the port of port, the person who was not aware of the name is the owner of the land. (2) On July 31, 2015, the person operating the instant booming vehicle in front of the booming high school located in the North-gu Seoul Metropolitan City at the port of port, and caused an accident to shock the booming boom of the damaged vehicle No. 4 in the wall of the apartment (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

3) The instant victimized vehicle is a vehicle with a boom 7 group booming booming, and the instant accident caused damage to the booming price No. 4 due to the instant accident. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each entry of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport

B. According to the facts of recognition as the basis of liability, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the instant Literacy Vehicle, is obligated to compensate the Defendant, who is the owner of the instant damaged vehicle, for the damages incurred by the instant accident.

C. The limitation of liability, however, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire arguments, the damaged vehicle of this case is acknowledged that it did not place signal signs, etc. to the apartment space for the safe passage of other vehicles while conducting the booming operation on the outer wall of the apartment space. Considering the above facts and all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to limit the plaintiff's liability to 80% in light of the principle of fair compensation system for damages sharing.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties to repair costs 1. The damage of the damaged vehicle caused by the instant accident is merely that the damage of the damaged vehicle, which is minor to the boom 4th boom, goes off, and thus, its repair.