1. The Defendant: 119,963,236 won to Plaintiff A, 500,000 won to Plaintiff B, and 1,00,000 won to Plaintiff C, and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 16:20 on August 10, 206, D was driving a road of one-lane in front of the FF University in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant hazard vehicle”) and proceeding on the surface of the road of the G-A-do (hereinafter “the instant A-A-W vehicle”) with a view to violating the stop signal, and did not discover A, from the right side of the course, who was standing on the left side of the instant A-W vehicle with a pedestrian signal, and did not find the plaintiff A, who was standing the crosswalk in line with the pedestrian signal, and caused the above A-W vehicle’s impact on the front part of the instant A-W vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the said plaintiff sustained the injury to the left side of the said Plaintiff, such as the front part of the instant A-W vehicle’s abandonment, the left side sliffrosis, the left side sle-gurosis, the e-gral rupture in the left side fever, the upper part of the A-Jle.

(2) The Plaintiff C is the mother of the Plaintiff A, and the Plaintiff B is his own siblings, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the owner of the foregoing melting vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the above accident.

C. The defendant asserts that even if the above plaintiff entered the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk, if there is a vehicle that is being driven pursuant to the new signals immediately before the replacement, it is erroneous for the defendant to cross the crosswalk while neglecting his duty of care to build the crosswalk after the passage of the vehicle for safety, and thus, it should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for. However, in full view of the overall purport of the arguments as seen above, pedestrians including the plaintiff A et al. at the time of the accident, including the plaintiff A et al., cut the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal, but D et al.