1. The Defendant’s KRW 8,327,885 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 28, 2016 to February 14, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D vehicles around 11:20 on February 28, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

) A driving of the Plaintiff, while making a red signal at one-lane of the 105 lux gas station located in Gwangju Mine-gu, in violation of the 3-lane distance, the Plaintiff’s front front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven at the left by green signal. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as cerebral lele, cokes, bones and internal walls, levers, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, and 10 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability and the above fact of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle that caused the accident of this case

On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was equipped with a so-called studler that fastens the passengers’ seat by fixing the safety labelling at the outside, and immediately after the instant accident, the Plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence 10, the plaintiff was recorded in the report of traffic accident (the report of actual condition survey) that the plaintiff had worn the safety level at the time of the accident of this case, and the entries and images of Eul evidence 2 through 4 alone cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff did not wear the safety level mark at the time of the accident of this case by following the above recognition. There is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The defendant's argument on limitation of liability is rejected.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The plaintiff's assertion of lost income 1 of this case.