1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of additional payment.

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is that the court of first instance considered the rate of negligence of 50% on the deceased: 50% on the part of the defendant vehicle, but the rate of negligence of the deceased is 40% on the part of the court. The remaining parts are identical with the judgment of the court of first instance.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D is the Esch Rexton vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 10:15 March 30, 2014.

) A person driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle along the three-lane road in front of Seoul, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, along the water basin. However, at that time, the vehicle signal, etc. was installed on the front side of the road to be operated within a speed of 70km per hour, and thus, the vehicle signal, etc. was observed at a speed and, despite the duty of care to safely drive in accordance with the signal, etc., he/she was at a speed of about 128km per hour in excess of a speed of 58km and speed of 128km per hour while the electric signal was red signal (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). (The instant accident”). (a) by negligence during the process in violation of the signal, he/she got the front part of the driver’s seat of the G driving vehicle running along the left side from the right side of the direction of running the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant vehicle”).

(2) On March 30, 2014, G died in the same accident, around March 30, 2014. (2) Plaintiff A is the husband, Plaintiff B, and C of the net G (hereinafter “the deceased”), the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

3) On May 2015, the Defendant comprehensively transferred the entire insurance contract to the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor pursuant to Article 140(1) of the Insurance Business Act pursuant to Article 146(1) of the same Act, and the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor succeeded to the Defendant’s rights and obligations under the insurance contract. Accordingly, the Defendant’s succeeding Intervenor succeeded to the Defendant’s rights and obligations on August 5, 2015. [based on recognition] fact that there is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 12 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, video, and the purport of the whole oral proceedings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, according to the Insurance Business Act, it shall be governed by the provisions.