1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 221,034,880, and Plaintiff C’s KRW 216,034,880 and each of the said money, the Defendant began on June 15, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D, at around 23:39 on June 15, 2016, driven a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.09% (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving the motor vehicle at the front direction of G in Gwangju City F on the right side of the upper direction of the Defendant vehicle, while driving the motor vehicle at the right side of the front side of the Defendant vehicle, H, walking from the front side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant vehicle, turned down the front right side of the Defendant vehicle.

(2) In the instant accident, H (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) suffered from a divesary wounds and died.

(3) The Plaintiffs, as the inheritor of the deceased, are parents, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap3, 4 evidence, Eul evidence or video (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts 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 as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability, inasmuch as the Defendant did not exercise due care, such as well-beinging the movement of the vehicle that is being driven to promote its safety, even though the Defendant did not keep the surrounding areas at the time of the instant accident and the vehicle is likely to proceed as part of the right side by the force of the lower court, even though the vehicle is likely to run as part of the right side by its force.

In light of the facts acknowledged as above, even if the deceased was in walking along the road, the fact that the defendant's vehicle is going to the side beyond the normal driving lane is that the driver of the defendant's vehicle misleads the operation of steering gear in the state of driving and caused the accident of this case. Thus, the defendant's error of the deceased in restricting the defendant's responsibility cannot be recognized.

Therefore, the defendant.