1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant 47,161,580 won, plaintiff B, C, and D respectively. 2.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a)The facts subsequent to the facts of recognition do not conflict between the Parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the respective entries or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 6, 13, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) At around 01:25 on October 13, 201, F driving the said taxi, and driving the said taxi at around 01:25, while driving the said taxi, the crosswalk in front of the H building in the Daegu Seo-gu, Seogu, Daegu, along the two-lanes of the city between the two-lanes of the 3-lanes from the Hansan post office distance. F (2) from the left side of the above taxi driving direction, the head, etc. of Plaintiff A crossing at the time when the pedestrian signal is red along the crosswalk at the right side of the crosswalk, thereby falling off on the road.

(3) The F was convicted of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (hereinafter “instant accident”) due to the instant accident and sentenced to conviction (Seoul District Court Seog District Court Decision 2013Ma560, Daegu District Court Decision 2013No2334). The Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as cerebral injury, cerebral injury under the bruth, sallle, sallle, sallle, sallle, etc. due to the instant accident.

5) Plaintiff B is the father of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the mother of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D is the partner of Plaintiff A. 6) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the said taxi.

B. The place where the accident in this case occurred is likely to occur as a crosswalk, and the time of occurrence is at night, and thus, the driver of the motor vehicle is obliged to take a duty of care to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the steering gear and brakes.

Nevertheless, F neglected this duty of care and caused the instant accident by shocking the Plaintiff A by negligence.

Therefore, the above taxi.