(a) Facts of recognition 1) G is the instant vehicle at H around 11:45 August 27, 2012 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

(i)A network A (hereinafter referred to as the “the Deceased”) crossing the said road on the right side of the instant vehicle along the crosswalk, she was negligent in failing to comply with the front line duty while driving one lane on the two-lane road in Pyeongtaek-si I while driving the said road.

2) The deceased suffered from an injury, such as satisfafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafafa

(2) After that, the deceased died during the treatment on August 7, 2014. (2) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff C, D, E, and F are the deceased’s children.

The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, 9 (including branch numbers if a branch number is attached) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition and limitation 1), the defendant is the insurer of the vehicle of this case, and is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case. However, if the deceased crosses the road by using the crosswalk, he is negligent in failing to get off the bicycle and walk the bicycle (see Article 13-2 of the Road Traffic Act), and such negligence contributed to the expansion of the damage of this case. Thus, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 90% in consideration of this.

As to this, the plaintiffs can pass along the sidewalk by children, older persons, and physically handicapped persons prescribed by Ordinance of the Ministry of Public Administration and Security under the interpretation of Article 13-2 (4) 1 of the Road Traffic Act, so even if the deceased who is the aged governance on a bicycle or crosswalk, it cannot be viewed as a ground for offsetting negligence.