1. The Defendant’s KRW 1,836,825 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from October 26, 2018 to October 11, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) On October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) around 23:20 on October 26, 2018, the Plaintiff is a halog car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

) A driver was driving a vehicle along the two-lanes of the road front of the Seocheon-dong, Songpa-gu, Seoul, Seoul, along the two-lanes of the comprehensive athletes, and D-car (hereinafter referred to as “preferred vehicle”) is driving on the front section of the Plaintiff vehicle.

) The E Private Taxi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) was proceeding. At this time, the E Private Taxi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Vehicle”) proceeding the two-lane road.

A) After the vehicle was changed to the one lane on the front side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the previous vehicle was stopped immediately, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not stop at all times and shocked the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy and a property damage insurance policy with respect to the Defendant’s vehicles. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy and a property damage insurance policy.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 15-1, 15-2, 16, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff as the insurer of the defendant vehicle due to the accident in this case.

C. However, according to the above evidence, prior vehicles began to reduce the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the front line, and accordingly, the Defendant’s vehicle was immediately stopped due to the alteration of the vehicle to the first line. While the Plaintiff was negligent in neglecting the movement of the front vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, the Plaintiff was at fault in driving the vehicle at the front line, while neglecting the movement of the front vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the vehicle at the front line. As such, the Plaintiff’s negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant.