1. The Defendant: KRW 17,941,756 to Plaintiff A; KRW 300,000 to Plaintiff C, D, and E respectively; and KRW 100,000 to the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On April 20, 2015, F driven a G car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 19:30 on April 20, 2015, while driving the G car and driving the 1 lane out of the four-lanes of the green street underground map of the 40-day Seoul Yongsan-gu, Seoul, into the distribution comparison intersection, the center line of the yellow yellow cell line was invaded by the yellow yellow cell line, and the front part of the left side of the Defendant vehicle was shocked by the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(2) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as B/L, etc.

(3) Plaintiff B’s spouse, Plaintiff C, D, and E are the children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence, each entry or image of Eul 2 evidence (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

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

C. Whether liability is limited or not, the Defendant, at the time of the instant accident, was able to confirm the Defendant’s vehicle’s failure to commit an offense, with the center line, and thus, the Plaintiff A had a warning.

Although it is alleged to the purport that the Defendant’s liability should be limited because the Plaintiff failed to perform the duty of care to take appropriate measures, such as changing the lane into a way that could occur, etc., even though it did not perform the said duty, there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had enough time to confirm the Defendant’s vehicle that infringed on the central line and to take measures to prevent the collision. Rather, according to the images in subparagraph 2-9 of the same Article, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected, since the Defendant’s vehicle’s failure to perform the duty of care

2. Scope of liability for damages.