1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 295,948,832 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from April 7, 2015 to January 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D vehicle at around 01:05 on April 7, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(ii) is the deceased E (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

) A person driving his/her vehicle on board and driving his/her two-lane road in front of the G gas station located in F in the Silung City F at a speed of about 14 km per hour from the direction of the Silung Police Station along one-lane, and received the rear part of the truck parked on the right side of the Silung Police Station, and accordingly, the deceased died of acute brain damage (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A is the mother of the Deceased, the Plaintiff B is the deceased’s siblings, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 7 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

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

C. However, according to the above evidence, C and the deceased, who are the driver of the Defendant vehicle, are between the relatives, and at the time of the accident, they were taking advantage of the Defendant vehicle at the time of the accident, taking a different kind of meals, and returning home again after having her friendship, and the accident in this case occurred. In light of all the circumstances, such as the purpose of the operation of the Defendant vehicle, the relationship between the deceased and the driver, the personal relationship between the deceased and the deceased, and the situation of the deceased’s being accompanied, mitigation of the Defendant’s liability would be reasonable

Furthermore, even though the Defendant’s vehicle is proceeding with approximately 144 km in speed exceeding 60 km per hour, the Deceased failed to urge the driver to drive safety, and the Deceased seems to have failed to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.

Therefore, the defendant is required to take into account all these circumstances.