The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 113,435,122 as well as 5% per annum from February 2, 2020 to December 11, 2020 and the next day.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 2, 2020, at around 18:15, C driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a four-lane road in the direction of “F” in Ulsan-gu E, Ulsan-gu, along one-lanes from the remote distance room in the agricultural and fishery product market to the front side of the Defendant vehicle while the Plaintiff’s G Oba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”), which driven along the median line and driven along the median line in order to proceed to the opposite lane, received the front part of the GOba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Oba”) from the front side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. In the instant accident, the Plaintiff sustained injuries, such as the sobaging No. 1-2, etc.

C. The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 4 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant, the insurer, is obligated to compensate the plaintiff for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the instant accident caused by the operation of the defendant vehicle.

B. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s limitation of liability should be taken into account by the Plaintiff’s negligence, such as the fact that the Defendant’s vehicle was a U-turn first, that the Plaintiff drivened in a two-lane, that the Plaintiff

However, according to the facts acknowledged earlier, the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Defendant’s Defendant’s vehicle, which was the center line, and in general, as a driver of a vehicle operating a road along which the center line is installed along his lane, it is common to trust that the vehicle from which the center line is operated is in compliance with his/her own lane. Therefore, barring any special circumstances that could anticipate the abnormal operation of the other party’s vehicle, the other party’s vehicle is not obliged to pay a duty of care to expect and drive the other party’s vehicle even if

The plaintiff is the plaintiff (Supreme Court Decision 2000Da67464 Decided February 9, 2001, etc.).