1. The Defendant’s KRW 40,670,959 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from February 1, 2010 to October 14, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 10:30 on February 1, 2010, Category B “Defendant Vehicle” (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

2) The Plaintiff’s driver, while driving the Plaintiff and driving the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government additional 371-dong along the two-lanes of the export bridge between the two-lanes and the two-lanes of the Bridges, was due to the Plaintiff’s failure to enter the intersection while the two-lane signal of the said intersection was changed by yellow signal from green to yellow signal, and thereby, the Plaintiff’s driver, who was left left the left at the left-hand side of the export bridge on the left-hand side of the Defendant’s driving direction, was transferred to the Defendant’s vehicle as the Defendant’s vehicle and suffered injury, such as cerebrovassis, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

【Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4 through 12 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers); hereinafter the same shall apply.

(ii) evidence of sub-paragraphs B(1) through (4) and the purport of the entire pleadings

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

C. The Plaintiff’s limitation of liability did not conflict between the parties to the crosswalk in front of the crosswalk in front of the intersection while driving Kwikset Service Okset, and did not start with the duty of care to prevent the accident, by examining whether there is another vehicle already entering the intersection in front of the crosswalk in front of the crosswalk in front of the intersection and making it possible for the Plaintiff to take a look at whether there is another vehicle already entering the intersection in front of the crosswalk in front of the crosswalk in front of the intersection, and according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, Nos. 2, 4, and 4.