A. The facts of recognition 1) Nonparty C, who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant on August 15, 2014, driven a vehicle in the D Mteti on or around 03:55, and proceeded with a three-lane road in front of the two-lane 1548, both weeks, in the middle of the viewing distance, from the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the city, about 70km in the long speed depending on three-lanes, disregarding the fact that the vehicle progress signal is changed to yellow signal, while driving it as is, Nonparty C, who was directly facing the front side of the front side of the government.

)The front part of the F-Woo Cargo Vehicle driving by C was shocked on the right side of C’s driving vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) As a result, the Deceased died on August 20, 2014, G Hospital around 22:18, in the form of a diversative organs, etc.

3) The deceased’s inheritors are children, who are children. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (each entry including number, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damage suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as an insurer.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. In light of all the circumstances revealed in the arguments of the instant case, such as the background of the instant case, the deceased’s age, the relationship between the Plaintiffs and the deceased, and the Plaintiffs’ receipt of KRW 30 million from the Defendant’s side as a criminal agreement amount, respectively, the consolation money of KRW 40 million shall be recognized for the Deceased, and KRW 3 million for the Plaintiffs, respectively. (2) Accordingly, the deceased’s consolation money of KRW 40 million was succeeded to each of the successors (i.e., KRW 40 million x 1/2).

B. According to the theory of the lawsuit, the Defendant’s lawsuit is reasonable to resist the Plaintiff as to the existence and scope of the obligation from August 15, 2014, which is the date of the occurrence of the instant accident, until November 17, 2015, which is the date of the instant judgment.