1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff A in excess of the amount ordered below.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 06:55 on March 24, 2015, G: (a) driven by a Hystal passenger car (hereinafter “Amstal passenger car”) and traveling along a two-lane road near the J located in Ulsan Southern-gu I along the two-lanes from the surface of the sewage treatment terminal to the K bank; (b) due to occupational negligence, he gets the left-hand turn at the center line to park a vehicle on the opposite direction; (c) by the Plaintiff’s driving along the one-lane in the opposite direction, he she received the front part of the LOtoalba (hereinafter “victim”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A owing to the instant accident, he/she suffered injuries, such as blood transfusions from a external trauma, cage cage cages, etc., which have not been open in two ducts due to the instant accident.

C. The defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the above G, and the plaintiff B and the plaintiff C are children of the plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers for those with additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident in this case.

B. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 10, 13 (including paper numbers), and Eul evidence Nos. 8 and the purport of the entire arguments, are as follows. The damaged vehicle can be driven by a person holding a Class 2 small license under the Road Traffic Act and subordinate statutes, which is a two-wheeled automobile with engine displacement 1137cc or more. The plaintiff A drives a damaged vehicle without holding the above license at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff A did not wear the safety mother at the time of the accident, and the plaintiff A did not wear the safety mother at the time of the accident. The plaintiff A stated the "safety mother attachment" in the actual yellow survey document (Evidence No. 13-3)'s protective gear attachment.