1. The Defendant: KRW 87,106,364 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from November 21, 2015 to June 22, 2018; and

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On November 21, 2015, B: (a) around 18:15, on November 21, 2015, C C C C cruise cab (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) While driving, while driving, and driving, at the same time, the front road in the Gu/U.S. D from the erode apartment to the erode, the Plaintiff, who crossed the crosswalk to the port from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, in excess of the limit of 60km/h (hereinafter “instant accident”) along one lane from the erode side of the erode apartment to the erode of the erode (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) According to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the upper half alley and the upper half alley, the upper half alley, the upper half alley and the sloping and the sloping, and the open upper floor of the sloping and the front floor.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 7 (the purport of all statements

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. The Defendant’s determination as to the limitation of liability asserts that since the Defendant erred in governance of the crosswalk without signal lights while neglecting the safety on the side from which the Defendant’s vehicle driven at the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s fault should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for. However, as recognized earlier, the Defendant’s driver was at the time of the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s driver was obliged to operate the crosswalk at a speed exceeding 72 km/h (60 km in the case of the instant accident) and speed exceeding 20 km from the limited speed (60 km/h in the case of the location of the instant accident, but the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle was obliged to drive the crosswalk at a speed exceeding 72 km and/orh, and did not immediately discover and stop the Plaintiff.