1. The Defendant: (a) from October 13, 2011 to Plaintiff A KRW 2,50,000, respectively, and each of them to Plaintiff B, C, and D.

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 5, 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) On October 13, 201, F driving a G Sona taxi, and driving the said taxi at around 01:25 on October 13, 201, F driven the crosswalk in front of the H building in Daegu Seo-gu by driving the said taxi at approximately 65 kilometers per hour between the two-lanes of the city and the two-lanes of the 3-lanes of the city.

(2) From the left side of the above taxi driving direction, F caused the Plaintiff A to cross the pedestrian red signal using the crosswalk to the right side of the crosswalk, and caused the Plaintiff A to face the head part, etc. of the Plaintiff A to the left side of the above taxi driving side and the front glass, thereby falling off on the road.

(3) The F was indicted for violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents and sentenced to conviction.

(4) The Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as brain injury on credit, undermath blood, her bones, body organs, her bones, etc., due to the instant accident.

(5) With respect to Plaintiff A, Plaintiff B is his father, Plaintiff C is her mother, and Plaintiff D is her mother.

(6) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the above taxi.

B. The place where the accident in this case occurred as a pedestrian crossing is likely to appear as a pedestrian, and the time of the accident is at night, and thus, the F driving of a motor vehicle has the duty of care to take care of the front side and 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.

The defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of the above taxi.