1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,440,122,318 to the Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from March 16, 2013 to November 24, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is the undried Industrial Development Co., Ltd. and B 27 tons truck (hereinafter “Defendant truck”).

2) On March 16, 2013, at around 14:48, 2013, C driven the Defendant Truck (Ma1) and driven the road near the two-lanes of the PPP at the end of the PPP at the end of the PPP at the end of the PPP at the end of the PPPP at the speed of 51 to 60km/h of the two-lanes from the PPPP at the end of the PPP at the end of the PPP at the end of the PPP, C received the back portion of the 5/4-metric tons of the military vehicle (Ma2; hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff Vehicle”) driven by the former D, while driving the road near the two-lanes of the PPP at the end of the PP.

(3) The Plaintiff was on board the back partitions of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered an injury, such as scambling, etc. (Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap’s 2, 3, 4, and 8, evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer.

C. The defendant's argument as to the defendant's assertion that the defendant found that the plaintiff's vehicle was parked in C while the plaintiff's vehicle was parked in the Gap's own stop and went through balk, but the collision occurred. However, at least it is evident that the plaintiff's vehicle was in a sudden drive, there is an error in the plaintiff's vehicle, and at least 30% of the negligence should be reflected in that the plaintiff's vehicle did not wear safety belts while boarding the rear partitions, which is the cargo use.

However, even if the plaintiff's vehicle was driven slowly, there is any negligence on the plaintiff's part of the plaintiff who was on board the back column (Evidence A No. 12) of the plaintiff's vehicle without a safety belt according to the order by entering the Gun team as a Gun team, which was s

It is difficult to view that there are circumstances to limit the defendant's liability.

2. The attached amount of damages, except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages.