1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,285,692 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from August 16, 2010 to July 1, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On August 15, 2010, the Plaintiff driving a freight B (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 02:45 on August 15, 2010, traveling along the intersection of the B B B B B B B, which is located in the U.S. E., U.S. E., U.S. H., and C also runs the said intersection on the left side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”). The said intersection is an intersection where traffic is controlled by traffic signal.

(2) While the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle are crossing, there was an accident that conflicts between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s right-hand side (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the left-hand pelle pelle, sloping, etc. due to the said accident.

(3) The defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, 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.

C. According to the evidence evidence No. 4, the prosecutor of the Cheongju District Prosecutors' Office, on March 8, 2011, acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff and the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle denied the fact of violating the signal signals, and there is no clear evidence to prove the fact of violating the signal signals by both the driver of the vehicle and the driver of the vehicle," and even according to all the evidence, there is no evidence to prove that either the plaintiff and C violated the signal signals.

Therefore, in the case of this case, in light of the purport of the damage compensation lawsuit, which means the adequate and fair burden of damage, it is reasonable to set the negligence and the ratio of liability of the parties in consideration of all circumstances related to the accident revealed by evidence investigation. Thus, Supreme Court Decision 26 March 26, 2004