1. The Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff A, KRW 23,375,257, and KRW 500,000 each for the Plaintiff B and C and each of the said money, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D, as a taxi engineer affiliated with the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company, the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company.

(2) The plaintiff B and C are children of the plaintiff, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, D, which intends to change the vehicle from a two-lane to a one-lane, is reasonable to deem that the instant accident occurred due to a mistake in changing the vehicle due to the change of the vehicle, by neglecting the duty of care to safely change the vehicle's attitude, even though it has a duty of care to safely change the vehicle's attitude, which already takes place on a one-lane basis.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the insurer of the defendant vehicle of this case, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances, which may be recognized by the statements in subparagraph 2-1 to 3, and 17 of the Evidence No. 2-17, have been discovered that the Plaintiff had already attempted to change the vehicle at a speed of 170km/h to 190km/h immediately before the instant accident; and (b) the Plaintiff appears to have not been sufficiently accelerated.