A. The facts of recognition (1) C driving a D vehicle on March 14, 2014 at around 18:50 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving the vehicle along the two-lane road in front of 5 Han Belgium risk Seoul Songpa-gu, Songpa-gu, and changing the course to the one-lane one-lane one. At that time, the part of the lower panel at the right side of the network E (hereinafter “the network”) driven along the above one-lane of the vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) is the front left side of the Defendant vehicle and then the damaged vehicle has come to conflict with the upper left side of the vehicle running along the two-lane of the same direction and came to conflict with the two-lane vehicle and the two-lane of the vehicle is turned to the lower left side of the vehicle, but the latter part of the vehicle’s accident occurred after the collision between the deceased and the deceased (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”) and the latter part of the vehicle, but the latter part of the accident occurred after the collision between the deceased and the deceased (hereinafter “Plaintiff 2”).

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, 6 through 8, 15, and Eul 2; hereinafter the same shall apply

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. However, according to the evidence as seen earlier, the accident of this case mainly caused the shock of the damaged vehicle by changing the lane of the Defendant, but it is deemed that the deceased contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the damage caused by the negligence that the deceased did not wear the safety belt and did not properly perform his duty of care on the front left, and thus, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 70%.

As to this, the plaintiffs are the safety belts of the deceased.