1. The Defendant’s KRW 4,377,017 as well as 5% per annum from August 21, 2013 to October 27, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the driver of the B-car (hereinafter “victim”) and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C-vans (hereinafter “victims”).

B. On August 21, 2013, at around 23:05, the driver of the sea-going vehicle: (a) cut off the brooms in front of the Esanbu in Daejeon Dong-gu and the right-hand on the road; and (b) cut down the back part of the damaged vehicle with the front part of the damaged vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered six injuries, such as hump, hump, hump, and hump, from both fump and hump. D.

On August 23, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant regarding the remainder of the damages except for the future dental treatment and compensation. On the same day, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 1,80,000 as the amount agreed upon by the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements in Gap's 1 through 4, 6, 9 (re-issued after correction of 4-1), 13 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul's statements in Eul's 2, 5, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of recognition of liability for damages, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages related to dental treatment among the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as an insurance company of a sea-going vehicle.

B. The Defendant’s limitation of liability is clear that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety bell if the Plaintiff suffered an injury in the Plaintiff due to the instant accident, and therefore, the Plaintiff’s fault should be taken into account at least 20% to limit the Defendant’s liability for damages. Therefore, it is difficult to conclude that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety bell solely on the ground that the inside part of the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident was faced with the damaged vehicle driving vehicle, and that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety bell differently.