1. The defendant's each of the plaintiffs 7,858,870 won and each of them shall be 5% per annum from October 30, 2018 to August 28, 2019, and 5% per annum.

Around 16:30 on October 30, 2018, if a house of 3.4 meters in the width of the front H located in G is a house of 3.4 meters in the width of the front H, the F, as a driver of the alley-road intersection, while driving from the IG intersection to the Jh surface, should take a safe way to examine the front left by the driver, but he neglected to do so and proceeds safely at the 2.3m alley in the width of the right right by the negligence of running without neglecting it, while driving the NN of the net M (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) driven from the K apartment room to the LL station, and going through approximately 8.2 meters, and then, the deceased suffered injury, such as crushing and dulverization in the upper left left by the deceased, and transferred the deceased to the GG hospital to suffer damage to the deceased on March 13, 2018, and caused damage to the deceased on March 20, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children, and are the inheritors.

[Ground of recognition] According to the above facts of recognition as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 14, 17, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, F is liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are the inheritors of the deceased for the damages suffered by the deceased due to the accident of this case.

In full view of the purport of the argument on the limitation of liability, where the deceased’s width is larger than that of the foregoing evidence, it was erroneous for the deceased to have neglected to conduct a cross-road crossing on the road and the alley road, even though it was safe. The deceased’s above negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, the scope of the defendant’s liability is limited in consideration of the above circumstances indicated in the argument of this case. However, considering all the circumstances indicated in the argument of this case, it is reasonable to view the deceased’s fault ratio to 60%, and thus, the Defendant’s scope of liability is limited to 40

. Liability for damages.