1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,673,051 as well as 5% per annum from September 26, 2017 to November 19, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 4:30 on September 26, 2017, C is a D vehicle owned by it (hereinafter “accidentd vehicle”).

In order to avoid the foregoing vehicle and conjection, the vehicle and conjection, which had been driving on the highway between Jinju and Daejeon, had been driving on the highway between Sacheon-si and the two-lanes in the vicinity of the Sacheon-si located in the Sacheon-si located in the Sacheon-si. In order to avoid the foregoing vehicle and conjection, the vehicle and the vehicle, which had been driving on the road, stopped over the opposite direction (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the instant accident, was killed in the chief of the accident vehicle, sustained injury, such as the escape card of a climatic signboard, cerebral typ, chromatic influorial typ, dratical influoral typ, and the fluoral influoral rack

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to an accident vehicle. The Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, entries in Gap

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident in this case as the insurer of the vehicle involved in the accident, unless there are special circumstances.

C. 1) The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the driver of the vehicle involved in the accident at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff did not encourage the driver to safe operation at the time of the accident, and therefore, the Defendant’s liability should be limited. (2) However, if the driver of the vehicle permits the passenger to take the passenger for the convenience and interest of the passenger without receiving any consideration, and the passenger was provided for the convenience and interest of the passenger, it is deemed that it is very unreasonable in view of the principle of good faith and equity to impose the offender the same responsibility as that of the ordinary traffic accident in light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the driver, the circumstances leading up to his taking over the vehicle, and the purpose and active nature