1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 100,00 and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F, respectively; and (b) against each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 01:30 on March 30, 201, G: (a) H car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

) A driver, while driving his vehicle and driving his vehicle at approximately 1 km in the direction of sexual intercourse in the direction of sexual intercourse in the direction of the opposite side of the river in the vicinity of the Yong-gu in Mapo-gu, Seoul, and driving his vehicle at the front side of the Defendant vehicle while driving three-lanes in the direction of the opposite side of the vehicle in the direction of the opposite side while driving the vehicle at the direction of the opposite side of the opposite side of the vehicle in the direction of the opposite side of the Defendant vehicle, and driving the rear side of the vehicle in the front side of the vehicle in the direction of the opposite side of the vehicle in the front side of the JA car in the direction of the next side of the vehicle in the front side of the rear side of the vehicle in the front side of the upper side of the vehicle in the front side of the defendant vehicle and the rear side of the vehicle in the front side of the upper side of the vehicle in question. Accordingly, the Plaintiff who was on the rear side of the said taxi in the front side of the vehicle in question was suffering from the injury of the fifth pressure frame, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), 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. On the other hand, the defendant's assertion that the defendant's liability should be limited because he was negligent in failing to wear the safety level at the time of the accident of this case, but the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to recognize it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly.