1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 38,497,813, Plaintiff B, C, and D, respectively, and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 20:00 on November 11, 2013, Defendant E driven the K TT 100 Orala (hereinafter “the instant Orala”) on the front of the JJ located in Sungwon-si, Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “instant Orala”), resulting in death by shocking the L (hereinafter “the network”) with the right side of the opposite 3-lanes from the opposite west of the Sungju-si in the sexual dial area, while driving three-lanes on the opposite west of the Sungju-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “the instant Orala”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff A is the wife of the Deceased, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the offspring of the Deceased.

Defendant Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former Sea”) is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract for the instant Oral Sea in accordance with the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and Defendant H is the owner of the instant Oral Sea.

[Ground of Recognition] Defendant Hyundai Sea and E: A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the entire pleading as to Defendant H: Confession

B. According to the above fact-finding, Defendant E is a driver, Defendant H is an operator, Defendant Hyundai Sea is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a liability insurer.

C. The Defendants asserts that the Defendant’s claim against Defendant Hyundai Sea and Defendant E regarding the limitation of liability is the crosswalk where the location of the instant accident was installed with signal apparatus, and the Plaintiff’s walked toward the red-living condition, such as pedestrian signal, etc. (the direct progress of the vehicle in the direction of the instant case) in violation of the signal, and the instant accident was caused, and thus, the Defendants’ liability should be limited in consideration of the deceased’s negligence.

Therefore, it is necessary to examine whether the deceased was crossing the signal in violation of the Defendants’ assertion, and there are indications in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 as shown in the Defendants’ assertion, but each of the above evidence, the witness M and N.