A. On February 6, 2016, around 06:35, 2016, F was negligent in performing the duty of charging attention on the two-lanes in front of the disease center distance of 193 in the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul as the promotion of Eunpyeong-gu (including the vehicle for exclusive use before a circuit), and caused the death of the vehicle by neglecting the duty of charging attention while driving the two-lanes of the vehicle in front of the disease center distance of 193 (including the vehicle for exclusive use before a circuit), and by neglecting the duty of charging attention on the street from the front line to the front line of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the road in front of the road in front of the road in front of the road in front of it (hereinafter “the instant accident”), the Plaintiff and B did not have any liability for damages to the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s parents, C, D, and E, or the insurer of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the Defendant in front of it in front of the foregoing.

B. The evidence revealed earlier prior to the limitation of liability reveals that the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, at the time, was negligent in cutting the crosswalk on the red signal at the time and causing the instant accident (the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle F discovered the deceased late at the time on the bus in front of the signal at the right-hand turn), and such negligence also seems to have contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 50% of the Defendant’s liability by taking into account the determination of the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant.

2. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of Gap evidence No. 8 and Eul evidence No. 4 as the evidence mentioned above:

The period for the convenience of calculation shall be calculated on a monthly basis.