1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,148,813 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 9, 2015 to November 9, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 11:25 December 9, 2015, B: (a) the rocketing Cargo Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”)

) A driver's vehicle of the Plaintiff's driver's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff's vehicle") driving along the Do road near the 1930-ro, e.g., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e., the e. the e., the e., the e., the e.

) The front side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the left-hand fence and the driver’s seat even (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as escape from a conical signboard, and climatic salt, etc.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, Eul’s evidence No. 1-1, 2, 3, and Eul’s evidence

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. In determining the limitation of liability, the Defendant also neglected and neglected the duty of Jeonju and attempted to pay damages to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s fault should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated. However, as recognized by the evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have immediately changed from three lanes to one lane, and the Defendant’s vehicle conflicts with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant’s vehicle seems to proceed from two lanes to one lane; and (b) the left part of the Defendant’s vehicle and the driver’s seat even with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle appears to have attempted to drive Uton rapidly at a place where Uton is prohibited.