1. The Defendant’s KRW 153,223,529 as well as 5% per annum from October 2, 2014 to May 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The following pictures are as follows: B, around 00:48 on October 2, 2014, C Two-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor Vehicle”).

(i)A D passenger motor vehicle that, while driving a motor vehicle and driving a motor vehicle, has straight 54-15 shooting distance from the north-si, Seocheon-si to the direction of the mountain station towards the mountain station, and has left left from the direction of the mountain station (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”);

) The collision with the other (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) A) A (hereinafter “the deceased”) died due to the instant accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile comprehensive insurance with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. 4) The Plaintiff is the mother of the Deceased.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleading

B. The defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who is the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, in violation of the signal even though the driver of the vehicle left the left pursuant to the new code, and thus, the accident is entirely caused by the deceased's mistake, and the defendant should be exempted from liability.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the argument in the evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2-1 through 9 of the evidence Nos. 2, the Plaintiff’s driver, even though the Plaintiff’s driver, changed the vehicle signal, etc. in the front bank to yellow light from green light, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s driver entered the intersection as it is, and accordingly, it can be recognized that the deceased was negligent.

However, as to whether the Defendant vehicle driver was not negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the vehicle (see Article 3 subparag. 1 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act), it is reasonable to view that the Defendant vehicle driver was negligent in paying due attention to the following circumstances: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge it; and (b) in light of the following circumstances: (c) evidence No. 3 and the entire purport of pleadings, it can

Therefore, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and the accident of this case.