1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 194,901,465 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from June 2, 2011 to June 11, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 2, 201, around 08:35, Nonparty B, at the D Hospital Distance Intersection located in Sinpo City C, proceeded with Frist vehicle on the side of the E apartment (hereinafter “accidented vehicle”) from the Frist vehicle, and, while making a left-hand turn to D Hospital prior to the Non-Protection Zone, there was an accident of collision with the taxi located in the opposite direction (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

B. The Plaintiff (the age of 38 at that time) who was on board the said vehicle due to the foregoing accident suffered injury, such as an external flaging surgery, a complete flaging flaging surgery, a flaging flaging flag, a cerebral flag, and an external cerebral flag, which requires treatment for about 8 weeks. At that time, the Plaintiff was pregnant with a 29 weeks pregnant her fetus (hereinafter “the deceased”).

C. Since then, while receiving hospitalized treatment at an I Hospital, the Plaintiff was given birth to the Deceased on the part of 35 weeks of pregnancy at the JUG Hospital to the extent that there was no spopic spopic spopic spact, etc.

At the time, the Deceased was under medical treatment, such as the treatment of artificial resistant respiratorys, and dives, etc., for the same year.

8. 18:14 around 18:14, death was caused by a difficulty in respiratory (low oxygen), pulmonary (pulmonary) under the condition that the patient was killed. D.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a personal automobile insurance contract with the non-party B.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is the mother of the deceased, and the non-party K is the father of the deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Gap evidence 4-1, Gap evidence 5-1 through 3, Eul evidence 1-1 and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff was responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case by the defendant's vehicle, and since the deceased died due to assistance in child delivery, the defendant who is the insurer is liable for compensating for the damages caused by the deceased and the plaintiff.

On this issue, the defendant is the defendant.