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

Defendant 19,744,542 Won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively. 66.

1. Basic facts

A. D, around 01:20 on September 7, 2014, when driving an Echip XG car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s side”), collisioned a Daegu NNG-based taxi that runs on the road facing the G store located in the Daegu Water-gu F, Daegu, with the course of driving the G store from the center on the high-distance distance to the high-distance distance.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". (b)

H (hereinafter “the deceased”) who was on the back of the instant taxi due to the shock of the instant accident died due to blood transfusions, etc., and the deceased and the deceased were on the said taxi. The deceased and the deceased were on the si were on the right-hand spons, etc., which require approximately 10 weeks of treatment, and the J suffered a sponsor, etc., which include about 9 weeks of treatment, including four or more woms, etc., which require approximately 4 weeks of treatment. K, a driver of the said si, suffered a chest aggregate that requires approximately 4 weeks of treatment.

C. Plaintiff A’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C are the deceased’s children.

The defendant is the insurer of the defendant's vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 9 (if available, including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to compensate the plaintiffs who are the deceased and their bereaved family members for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. However, according to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 9, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that the deceased did not wear a safety bell at the time of the instant accident. The deceased's negligence also caused the expansion of damages caused by the instant accident.

I would like to say.

Therefore, in determining the amount of damages against the plaintiffs, it shall be taken into account, and the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., the fundamental and significant responsibility of the occurrence of the instant accident, is a stroke-down.