1. As to Plaintiff A, the Defendant: (a) KRW 815,782,941; (b) KRW 5 million to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 5 million to Plaintiff B; and (b) from November 12, 2015 to each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) C is the Defendant’s vehicle’s vehicle at around 18:30 November 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(B) The accident of this case is the accident of this case where: (a) Plaintiff A’s E-to-turned part of the front part of Defendant A’s E-to-work, who was directly engaged in the yellow point signal at one bank shooting range from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front side of the front side of the front side of the front side of the Defendant vehicle, was under way in front of the entrance intersection of the Southern Maeban Sato apartment at the Han Bank at the three-distance bank, and was under way in front of the open intersection of the Pelimic apartment at the third side of the Han Bank, and was under way in front of the open intersection of the Pelimictoic apartment; and (b) was under way in front of the open intersection of the Pelimictoic apartment.

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as incomplete scarblings, etc. due to damage to scarbs.

3) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable for compensating for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle. C. Although the Defendant’s erroneous determination of whether the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle subject to limitation of liability could turn to the left is deemed to play a critical role in the instant accident, the Plaintiff also made a mistake that did not properly look at the surrounding the yellow domination signal, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the instant argument, the Plaintiff’s negligence shall be deemed to be 25%, and the Defendant’s responsibility shall be limited to 75%, taking into account all the circumstances indicated in the instant argument, and the Defendant’s liability shall be limited to the Defendant’s fault to be 25%. [Recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item of the annexed Schedule of Calculation of Compensation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but the last month.