1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 48,626,785 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 44,072,785 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from December 3, 2019 to December 2021 to each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On December 3, 2019, D, driving a vehicle for E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 04:00 on December 3, 2019, where D opened a crosswalk at the front of the G cafeteria located in Pyeongtaek-si F to turn to the left.

H was shocked to the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”), and due to the instant accident, H was killed in the injury, such as cerebral blood, and died on December 9, 2019 as brain livers (hereinafter “H”). 3) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle.

4) The plaintiffs inherited the deceased's property as one-half of each of the deceased's children (I is the wife of the deceased, and J, K, I, J, and K applied for adjudication on the renunciation of inheritance against the deceased's property as the children of the deceased's children or the children of the deceased's children, I, J, and K filed an application for adjudication on the waiver of inheritance from the above court on January 31, 2020, and received an adjudication on the waiver of inheritance from the above court on January 31, 2020). 【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】 【No dispute over the waiver of inheritance’s property, Gap's statements or images, and the purport of the entire pleadings, all of the arguments (including various numbers).

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that there is no causal relation between the accident of this case and the death of the deceased, since the death diagnosis report includes the death of the deceased as a disease.

However, the following circumstances recognized by the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 5, 13 through 23, and 25, or the entire text of the video and visual changes, namely, the Deceased appears to have suffered an accident of this case while walking, and the degree of shock was not significant. At the time, the Deceased was faced with the Defendant's vehicle and went to the main set of the Defendant's vehicle, and his head was removed from the ground.