1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 9,857,318 to Plaintiff A and KRW 5% per annum from March 24, 2011 to June 3, 2014; and (b).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D, an acting driving engineer, is deemed to be a vehicle for deemed-to-light on March 24, 201, around 01:35, 201 (hereinafter “Woo-to-day vehicle”).

)A driver's driving and driving at the Hancheon-si 531-1 Jungdong e.g., Seoul High-dong e., the U.S. e., the U.S.F. F. M. A. M. driver's driving (hereinafter referred to as "victim's vehicle") under normal e.g., the U.S. driver's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder's license holder

(B) The parts adjacent to the driver’s seat were added to the front part of the vehicle involved in the accident, and due to the shock, the damaged vehicle was pushed down, and the front part of the Hro-si operating G in the signal atmosphere was charged with the front part of the damaged vehicle with the front part of the damaged vehicle’s front part, and the Plaintiff A was injured by the injury, such as the bones 2 invertebrate, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B and C are children of Plaintiff A.

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (the content of security: personal injury II, property damage, personal injury, and self-vehicle damage) with a substitute driving company to which D belongs, which contains a special clause of a proxy driving business operator that provides that “if payment is possible as liability insurance, it shall compensate for the excess amount.” The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract (the content of security: personal injury II, personal injury, personal bodily accident, and self-vehicle damage). [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages exceeding the liability limit for the personal compensation I in all damages suffered by the plaintiff A due to the accident of this case.

C. The defendant's assertion that the defendant should limit the defendant's liability because the plaintiff A did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case, considering this, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Scope of liability for damages.