A. On July 21, 2012, D: (a) around 23:10 on July 21, 2012, D is a passenger car driven by the Plaintiff A, who used a signal waiting in the same direction, while driving along three lanes in the direction of the starting point at the seat of the second road, which is an educational-interest base for the highway, which is in the direction of the intersection in the south-gu Incheon Metropolitan City. (hereinafter referred to as “the Plaintiff vehicle in this case”).

3) The lower part of the accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) is the case.

(2) Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injury of her chests below her chests due to the pellet, right 3 through 8, left 3, 5, 6, 7, and 8, the pelup of the pelup of the upper left, the supupup of the chest suplet on the left and right side, the suplet of the chest suplet, the suplice damage, etc.

3) Plaintiff B’s spouse, Plaintiff C was accompanied by the instant Plaintiff’s instant vehicle at the time of the instant accident. Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff B entered into a mutual aid agreement between the large transport and the Defendant’s owner of the Defendant vehicle, with the content that the Defendant would compensate for all damages to the Defendant’s vehicle’s accident, such as the C7 and T8’s structural stress response, acute stress response, and the large B cell forest type accompanied by the heart withdrawal. Plaintiff C suffered from the injury, such as the Plaintiff’s first head of the instant accident, the instant accident (i.e., the Plaintiff’s spouse, and the Plaintiff C’s her spouse, and the Plaintiff C was on board the instant vehicle. (ii) The Defendant entered into a mutual aid agreement between the Defendant’s large transport and the Defendant’s limited liability company, with the content that the Defendant would compensate for all damages to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

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

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs did not wear a safety level, the defendant's responsibility should be limited, but since there is no evidence to acknowledge this, this part of the defendant's assertion is rejected.

2. The plaintiff's damages amount against the plaintiff A.