1. The defendant shall grant the plaintiff A KRW 161,523,043, KRW 1,000,000 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 50,000 to the plaintiff C, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) D is a vehicle E around 12:15 on July 31, 2009 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) The Plaintiff’s driver’s license and driving license and driving license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and operating license and license and operating license and license and license and license and operating license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license and license

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle, and Plaintiff B is the denial of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is Plaintiff A’s children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

C. As to the Defendant’s argument regarding the limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts that even though D, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, has already entered the intersection and left to the left, the Plaintiff A was negligent in neglecting his/her duty of care to prevent accidents by examining whether there is a vehicle already entering the intersection, even if it is going through the straight line.

The driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection where traffic is controlled by a sprink, signal, etc., shall, unless there are special circumstances, be sufficient when other vehicles are believed to observe traffic regulations and take appropriate measures to avoid any collision, and even when other vehicles are in violation of the signal and are driving across their course.