1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 1,39,651,064, Plaintiff B’s KRW 10,000,000, and each of the said money, from August 26, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) D is a low-priced car on August 26, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 00:50 on August 26, 2016

) A driving a vehicle and driving a two-lane in front of the F in front of the G school, driving a two-lane from the G school room to the right-hand side of the vehicle moving the crosswalk installed in that place to the right-hand side from the left-hand side of the running direction of the Defendant vehicle on the yellow flashing hour of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as brain injury, cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral tys.

3) Plaintiff A’s mother is the Plaintiff’s mother, and the adult guardian (as for Plaintiff A, the adult guardian was commenced on February 20, 2017 by Suwon District Court Decision 2016Ra846, Jun. 20, 2017, and Plaintiff B was appointed as the adult guardian.

(3) The defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the defendant vehicle. The defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the defendant vehicle. The defendant's ground for recognition has no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, 2, 3, 4

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, was injured by the Plaintiff due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. The Defendant asserts that, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, the above Plaintiff’s error should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, on the ground that the Plaintiff, as well as A, should have checked whether or not a vehicle passed on the front left and right right of the pedestrian and should have been walked along the crosswalk, where the Plaintiff, at night, had a large number of traffic flow signals from two lanes.

However, the above-mentioned evidence, in particular, the actual survey document No. 14-3, and each photograph-free taxi.