1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, 28,853,225 won; (b) against Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G, respectively, 13,949,016 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On February 5, 2014, H driven an I vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 16:48 on February 5, 2014, and driven the K cafeteria road in front of the K cafeteria located in the J of the Chungcheongnam-gun of the Chungcheongnam-do.

The above person proceeded to the left side of the road above the center line and returned to his own lane. In this case, the network M was driven by NOtoba and proceeded to the opposite direction, and he discovered the Defendant’s vehicle driving beyond the center line and avoided it to the opposite lane (the Defendant’s normal lane). During this process, H came to conflict on the front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle with the front part of the deceased’s front part.

As a result, the Deceased was killed due to two dubs of the same day and chest damage, etc.

(2) The plaintiff A is the deceased's wife, and the remaining plaintiffs are the children of the deceased, and the defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant's vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 18, Eul evidence 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.

C. The Defendant asserts that: (a) as the accident occurred in the vicinity of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Deceased shall be deemed to have invaded the Defendant’s vehicle; and (b) as the Deceased did not wear a safety cap while driving the urbine, the Deceased’s negligence should be taken into account.

According to each description of Gap evidence, especially Gap evidence No. 18-24, Eul evidence No. 18-24, and Eul evidence No. 1, the reason why the deceased proceeded toward the lane of the defendant's vehicle was to avoid the defendant's vehicle running toward the lane of the deceased by breaking the center line. Therefore, the deceased's vehicle is the defendant's vehicle.