A. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

E drive a Fcar at around 02:30 on December 24, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”), and drive a T-type intersection where no front signal, etc. is installed in Chungcheongnam-gu G in Chungcheongnam-gu budget-gun, and is in the direct direction of the intersection by neglecting the duty of front-speeding at the speed of about 70 km at a speed exceeding 60 km per hour, the two-lanes of which are the speed limit depending on two-lanes from the Jinsan-gu flood slope, and is in the high-speed area from the Jinsan-gu flood slope, and is in excess of the speed of 60 km.

The utility poles installed outside of the road were received as the front part of the Defendant vehicle by leaving the intersection, and due to this, the Plaintiff A, who was accompanied by the second half of the left part of the Defendant vehicle attached to the top of the operation of the Defendant vehicle, was injured by the injury, such as the double water table of the second half of the left part, the depth of the left part of the lower part, and the open height of the lower part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D are the students of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance for the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability 1) There is no dispute between the parties that Plaintiff A was committed to marriage at the time of the instant accident between E and the Plaintiff’s home at the time of the instant accident. Thus, it is unreasonable to impose the same liability as the general traffic accident on the operator, who is the perpetrator, in light of various circumstances, such as the operation circumstance and the relationship between the operator and operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, the purpose of operation, and the situation of the Dong, etc., as seen above, it is unreasonable in view of the principle of good faith and equity, and thus, it should be taken into account in determining the scope of the Defendant’s liability. 2) The Defendant shall guide and guide the Plaintiff A to have an intersection at the front bank.