A. Basic facts 1) Defendant D is under the influence of alcohol at around 20:25 on May 22, 2013 (hereinafter “accident vehicle”). Defendant D is under the influence of alcohol 0.154% (hereinafter “accident vehicle”).

(B) a network F (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) in which one-lane road is walking near the airport intersection in the vicinity of the city adjacent to the city of Cheongju-si, one-lane, while driving.

2) The instant accident was shocked (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) On July 14, 2015, the Deceased died of the instant accident due to a serious wound, such as climatic depression, etc., and was hospitalized in the hospital.

3) The Plaintiff’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C are children between the Deceased and the Plaintiff, and Defendant East Fire Marine Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

) The insurer is the insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant D with respect to the vehicle involved. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including the number of each number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the facts of recognition as the basis of liability, Defendant D caused the instant accident by mistake that caused the negligence of neglecting the duty of drinking driving and pre-control, which led to Defendant D’s tort, and Defendant D, as an insurer of the accident vehicle, is jointly liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.

C. However, according to the facts as seen earlier and the overall purport of the statement, images, and arguments Nos. 1 through 10, 13, and 2 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 13, and 2, even though the road of the accident site was divided into the roadway and the sidewalk, the deceased was found to have been shocked by the vehicle involved in the accident while walking the roadway at a low time. The deceased's mistake as mentioned above also appears to have contributed to the cause of the accident of this case, it is reasonable to limit the Defendants' responsibility to 70%.

2...