1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 91,513,595, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 55,509,063 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 13:10 on January 20, 2014, D driving a vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”) that the Defendant’s vehicle felled into and returned to the left by drainage under approximately 3 meters away from the center line, while driving a national highway by the Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jinan-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-gun, Jin-do.

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1-4, 5, and 22, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

다. 책임의 제한 앞서 본 각 증거들에 의하면, 피고 차량의 운전자인 D은 망인과 인삼 도소매업을 하면서 친구처럼 지내던 사이로 함께 마이산으로 바람을 쐬러 가던 중 이 사건 사고를 일으킨 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 이와 같은 피고 차량의 운행목적, 동승자와 운전자의 인적 관계, 망인이 피고 차량에 동승한 경위 등 이 사건 변론에 나타난 여러 사정에 비추어 보면, 피고의 책임을 일정 부분 감액조정하는 것이 신의칙이나 형평의 원칙에 합당하다고 보이므로, 이러한 사정들을 피고가 배상할 손해액을 산정함에 있어 참작한다.

In addition, in view of the death of the deceased who was on the back seat of the driver and two other winners, even though they were killed, the deceased may be inferred that he did not wear a safety bell at the time of the instant accident, and the deceased's error above.