A. 366,692,890 won, 5,000,000 won to Plaintiff B, and 1,000,000 won to Plaintiff C, respectively.

A. Fact 1) D is a truck E around March 30, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 13:18, 2010.

) A driving of the Plaintiff, while proceeding with the U.S. driver’s F of the Plaintiff, who was proceeding with the U.S. driver’s vehicle in the U.S. located in the U.S. room in the U.S. room. However, since the concession sign and the red on-and-off signal are installed, D temporarily suspended prior to entering the intersection, did not exercise a duty of care to safely drive the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right, but neglected to stop the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the U.S. room in the U.S. room in the U.S. room in the U.S. room, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff, such as the damage of light water (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the wife and children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle.

3) Plaintiff A received KRW 27,325,120 from the succeeding intervenor until January 2016, and the succeeding intervenor recovered KRW 23,751,310 from the Defendant. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, Party A’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Party A, and Party A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the intersection, which is the place of the instant accident, has a yellow flickering signal, etc. installed in the direction of the Plaintiff’s driver’s vehicle in the direction of the accident; (b) the Plaintiff neglected to take a safe look at the surrounding traffic situation, but did not wear a safety level; and (c) the Plaintiff’s negligence appears to have caused the instant accident and the expansion of damages; (d) therefore, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 60% in consideration of the foregoing circumstances.

2...