1. The Defendant’s 30,615,429 won to Plaintiff A, 500,000 won to Plaintiff B, and 50,000 won to Plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) On December 19, 2005, the person whose name was omitted is the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) The Plaintiff et al., carrying the Plaintiff et al. on and passing through the Twit-distance Intersection of the Kundong-si Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such, the instant accident was caused by the ice-scoping along the ice-scoping path.

2) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered heat on the inner side, and thereafter, Plaintiff A left the inner part and the inner part of the inner part and the inner part with a length of 10 cm.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [The fact that no dispute over the grounds for recognition exists, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 8, and the purport of

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant’s exemption from the Defendant’s assertion (A) asserts that, at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the Plaintiff’s occurrence of a trace against the Plaintiff’s inner side, the Plaintiffs could sufficiently anticipate that the subsequent disability would remain. As such, the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages has expired three years from that time. The date when the Plaintiffs became aware of the damage, which is the starting point of the extinctive prescription, in relation to the claim for damages arising from an illegal act at a time interval between the harmful act and the actual damage arising therefrom, is insufficient to the extent that there was a perception of the damage that was temporarily hidden in a conceptual and dynamic state, and means the date when the damage was known that it was realized after that time (see Supreme Court Decision 2000Da11836, Jan. 19, 201). While the Plaintiff got a scambling after being scambling on the face of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s age was 8 months old at that time, and the growth was terminated as well.