Plaintiff .

A. On March 29, 2013, G: (a) driven a E vehicle on March 29, 2011: (b) around 01:19, G was driving the two-lane of the three-lane road near the F Apartment-gu, Cheongju-si (hereinafter referred to as “dive vehicle”); (c) the two-lane of the three-lane road adjacent to the F Apartment-gu, Cheongju-si; (d) at the time, G was driving directly from the shooting distance room; and (e) at the time, he was able to look at the front side and the left side of the front line and accurately operate the steering direction and brake system, and (e) he was negligent in driving the network A (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) crossing the right side from the left side of the direction of running the lue Sea Vehicle as they were, thereby causing injury to the deceased, such as blood transfusion, etc., due to the exposure to the external part of the vehicle.

B. The Deceased died on October 30, 2018, which was pending in the trial due to the foregoing accident.

C. The plaintiff B is his spouse, the plaintiff C, and the J are their children, and the defendant is the insurer of the sea-going vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of whole pleadings, as to Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 10, 15, 16 (including paper numbers)

2. Plaintiff J’s ex officio determination as to the legitimacy of the part concerning the claim for consolation money in its own lawsuit of Plaintiff J sought payment of KRW 5,00,000 for its own consolation money. However, Plaintiff J was not the Plaintiff before the deceased’s death and only was in the status of the litigation administrator of the deceased. As such, the Plaintiff J cannot seek a payment of consolation money in this case, apart from the succession of the claim for consolation money to the deceased as seen below.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff J’s lawsuit is unlawful.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damage suffered by the deceased and their bereaved family members who suffered the above accident by the harming vehicle as the insurer of the harming vehicle.

B. According to the evidence mentioned above, the deceased was negligent in crossing the road by violating the signal at the time of the above accident.