A. The facts of recognition (1) around 13:30 on February 6, 2018, F driven a Gpoter freight vehicle, the Defendant’s insured vehicle, and led the Deceased to go beyond the floor of the Defendant, by taking the front part of the Gpoter in front of an I cafeteria located in Sejong Special Self-Governing City, due to the negligence of entering the intersection (if the traffic is not controlled, the road) in the market, while driving the I cafeteria in front of the I cafeteria from the G G of Sejong Special Self-Governing City to the south side of the Gpool.

(2) On April 10, 2019, the Deceased suffered from injury, such as anti-marction caused by climatic depression, and an unknown marction in detail due to the instant accident, and eventually caused the death of the deceased in detail due to an unidentified shock accompanied by a marcosis on April 10, 2019.

(3) The Plaintiffs took over the instant lawsuit with the deceased’s children (the deceased died after the deceased’s action) and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5, Gap 14-15, Eul 1 and Eul 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident as an insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

C. The Defendant’s limitation of liability claim and judgment (1) comparative negligence: Provided, however, according to the above facts and the evidence as seen earlier, the deceased neglected his duty of ex officio care in light of the structure and surrounding circumstances of the accident site of this case ( difficult to readily conclude that the deceased’s ex parte entered the ship, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion), and the deceased’s failure to wear a safety appearance while driving an ex parte with the driver’s license.