A. The facts of recognition (1) around 15:05 on January 12, 2018, the F driven the G Twitman’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and passed the crosswalk by moving the I On the front side of the G upper school in the direction of the stage distance from the J elementary school to the direction of the direction of the direction, while moving the front side and the right and the right of the front side of the vehicle in the direction of the direction, due to negligence that did not properly examine the front side and the right and the right of the front side of the vehicle (hereinafter “the network”) and caused the deceased to die due to pulmonary damage, etc. on the same day.

(2) The Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 5, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), video, the purport of the whole pleadings

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

C. However, the limitation of liability is limited to the case where the accident of this case occurred as the driver of the defendant vehicle could not discover the deceased because the deceased, as the deceased, was cut off the crosswalk due to the reason that the situation could not be known, and thus, the defendant's liability is limited to 70% since the error of the deceased is deemed to have a substantial cause for the occurrence of damage caused by the accident of this case.

The defendant asserts that the driver of the defendant's vehicle could not discover the deceased on the wind that the deceased was used for his own on the road, and that the driver of the defendant's vehicle should not be less than 70% of the negligence of the deceased who was satisfed during his crossing

However, in this case, the driver of the defendant vehicle repeats repeated activities while driving on the road, and in the process, the driver of the defendant vehicle repeats the same.