A. At around 09:25, August 29, 2018, D operated a sealed freight truck (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and went to the left at the front of the F apartment in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City’s community service center room where it was in violation of the signal while going to the left at the front of the G apartment room, and the H (Is, women, and women at the time of the accident, and 75 years old and 11 months old at the time of the accident; hereinafter “the network”) was shocked with Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

On August 30, 2018, the Deceased was sent to the hospital after the instant accident, and died on the part of the hospital.

C. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, the plaintiff B is the deceased's child, and the defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant's vehicle.

On the other hand, the deceased's heir has children J except the plaintiffs.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 17, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has died due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. The Defendant asserts that, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, such errors should be considered in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the Deceased, since the Defendant was negligent in failing to perform his/her duty of care to cross the crosswalk, after checking whether there is a vehicle driven in crossing the crosswalk where no signal apparatus is installed.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the overall purport of the pleadings to the images of Gap evidence Nos. 3, 13, and 14, Gap evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 10, i.e., the accident of this case occurred when the defendant vehicle was making a sudden turn to the left in violation of the signal in direct margin.