meonjeo sangdaebangui chaegimeul jeonghwakhage hwaginhaeya haeyo.

먼저 means first, first of all, or before anything else. It shows sequence or priority.

In Korean, words like 먼저 often appear near the beginning of the sentence to set the context for what should happen first. So in this sentence, it tells us that checking the other party’s responsibility is the first step.

상대방 means the other person, the other side, or the other party.

The particle 의 shows possession or relationship, similar to 's or of in English. So:

• 상대방 = the other party
• 상대방의 = the other party’s

So 상대방의 책임 means the other party’s responsibility.

In real Korean, 의 is sometimes pronounced more like 에 in casual speech, but in writing it stays 의.

Because 책임 is the object of the verb 확인하다.

• 확인하다 = to check / confirm
• What are we confirming? 책임
• So 책임 takes the object particle 을

That gives us:

• 책임을 확인하다 = to confirm/check responsibility

If you used 책임이, it would make 책임 the subject, which does not fit this sentence as naturally.

책임 usually means responsibility.

Depending on context, it can also feel like:

• fault
• blame
• liability

So in a legal, business, or accident-related context, 상대방의 책임 might mean something like the other party’s liability or whether the other side is at fault.

정확하게 comes from the adjective 정확하다, which means to be accurate / exact.

To turn it into an adverb, Korean often uses -게:

• 정확하다 = to be accurate
• 정확하게 = accurately / exactly / clearly

So 정확하게 확인하다 means to confirm accurately or to check carefully and precisely.

It describes how the confirming should be done.

확인하다 means to confirm, to check, or to verify.

It is often used when you want to make sure something is correct or established. In this sentence, it does not just mean casually looking at something. It suggests making sure the responsibility is clearly established.

So 책임을 확인하다 is more like:

• confirm responsibility
• verify who is responsible

rather than just look at responsibility.

This is built from:

• 확인하다 = to confirm
• -아/어야 하다 = have to / must

So:

• 확인하다
• → 확인해야 하다
• → 확인해야 해요 (polite conversational style)

This means:

• have to confirm
• need to check
• must verify

So 확인해야 해요 means you/we need to confirm.

해요 is the polite, conversational style. It is respectful but natural in everyday speech.

Compare:

• 확인해야 해요 = polite, common in conversation
• 확인해야 합니다 = more formal, often used in announcements, business writing, formal advice, or reports

Both are correct. The difference is mainly tone and level of formality.

The subject is omitted, which is very common in Korean.

Depending on context, this sentence could mean:

• You need to confirm the other party’s responsibility first
• We need to confirm the other party’s responsibility first
• One must first confirm the other party’s responsibility

Korean often leaves out subjects when they are understood from the situation.

Korean usually puts the verb at the end, and modifiers come before the words they describe.

Here is the structure:

• 먼저 = first
• 상대방의 책임을 = the other party’s responsibility + object marker
• 정확하게 = accurately
• 확인해야 해요 = need to confirm

So the sentence follows a very normal Korean pattern:

time/order word + object + adverb + verb

A very literal English-style order would be:

First, the other party’s responsibility accurately confirm must.

That sounds strange in English, but it is normal in Korean.

Yes. 상대방 is broader than just a single person in casual conversation.

It can refer to:

• the other person in a conversation
• the other side in an argument
• the other party in a contract
• the opposing driver in an accident
• the other side in a dispute

So in this sentence, it may sound a bit formal and could easily be used in legal, insurance, business, or conflict-related contexts.

Yes, you could say:

먼저 상대방의 책임을 확인해야 해요.

That still means First, you need to confirm the other party’s responsibility.

Adding 정확하게 makes the sentence stronger by emphasizing that the confirmation should be precise, careful, and correct, not just quick or vague. It adds an important nuance of accuracy.

Yes, but it sounds a little formal or situation-specific. It would be natural in contexts like:

• discussing an accident
• legal or insurance matters
• business disputes
• giving practical advice

In a casual everyday situation, people might use simpler wording depending on context, but this sentence itself is completely natural and correct.