1. The defendant 1.1,982,576 won to the Selection B, the plaintiff (Appointed Party) to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won, the Selection C, D, E, and F respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) G driving a H vehicle that entered into an automobile insurance contract with the Defendant around 14:00 on April 7, 2008, and driving the said vehicle into a narrow embankment in the direction of the river of the side of the riverside in the direction of the side of the side of the main stream of the said vehicle, which is the part front of the traffic of the designated victim B, going through the same direction, and suffered injury to the victim designated parties B, by shocking the part of the victim designated parties B, who proceeded in the same direction.

(2) The Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed parties C, D, E, and F are children of the designated parties B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition as above, G is a tort under the Civil Act or an operator of an accident vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has taken over the liability for damages of G, and is obligated to compensate for the damages suffered by the designated parties B and their children due to the accident of this case, and the designated parties C, D, E, and F.

C. The defendant alleged that there was negligence in failure to avoid G's vehicle while driving a designated person B in front of G's vehicle, but as seen in the above recognition, the vehicle driven by G was shocked behind the designated person B's bicycle in front of G's vehicle. The mere fact that the vehicle driven before G's vehicle is insufficient to recognize any negligence, and there is no other circumstance to recognize the negligence of the designated person B. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

2. Scope of damages.

A. Although seeking the payment of the lost income for the designated parties B, the maximum working age of the designated parties B fell under the age of 81, at the time of the instant accident, the maximum working age was expired, and special import activities at the time.