A. Fact 1) D is a vehicle E around 06:05 on March 7, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver’s license and proceeding along the three-lanes from the 12.1km point on the side of the Incheon East-dong, Incheon East-do, to the side of the west Incheon Incheon-do road, the two-lanes from the 4-lanes, and the two-lanes have been changed to the two-lanes, while neglecting the duty of the Jeonju City, and instead neglecting the duty of the Jeonju City, the F (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) is located later on the two-lanes on the front road.

) After finding late the body of the deceased, the deceased died due to brain-dead, cerebral transfusions, cerebral dystrokes, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”) on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who operated the Hand on the left-hand side, carried out a sudden brake, but was not faced with, and caused the deceased to die due to the cerebral stroke, cerebral dy

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 9 (including branch numbers in the case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts that the limitation of exemption and liability should be exempted on the ground that, without the marking of the vehicle broken down on the expressway by the deceased, D, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, could not discover the deceased on the expressway, and it could not be anticipated that the deceased would have been on the expressway. Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any negligence on the expressway by D, and thus, it should be exempted.

According to the above evidence, D, the driver of the defendant vehicle, neglected his duty at the time of front-time, trying to find the deceased's vehicle late and change the vehicle vehicle to avoid the vehicle.