1. The Defendant, from April 14, 2012, as to the Plaintiff C’s KRW 49,376,610, and each of the said KRW 600,000 to the Plaintiff A and B, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The following facts do not conflict between the Parties:

D (the mother of the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff C’s external fluortion) driven a e-car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) in the west-to-Saeon west-to-Saon (hereinafter “Defendant”) on April 14, 2012, around 17:10, while driving the e-car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) in the west-to-Saon west-to-Saon (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff C, who was accompanied by Defendant’s fluor on the top of the operation

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance policy with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

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

C. There is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff C was accompanied by the Defendant’s vehicle operated by the Defendant Company D, which is an outer money with his family, and the instant accident occurred. Therefore, it is unreasonable to impose the same liability as the general traffic accident on the offender, in light of various circumstances, such as the circumstances surrounding the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the relationship with the operator, the purpose of operation, and the circumstances surrounding the operation, etc., as indicated in the instant argument.

Since these circumstances are to be considered in determining the scope of the defendant's liability for damages.

In addition, if the statement in Eul 1-3 added the purport of the entire argument, the plaintiff Eul took the back seat of the defendant vehicle, and the plaintiff Eul et al. took the part in the defendant vehicle's back seat while the plaintiff Eul et al. became aware of the fact that the accident of this case occurred under the status that the plaintiff Eul et al. became aware of the plaintiff Eul in the steering seat of the defendant vehicle. The plaintiff Eul's mother, as the plaintiff C's mother, did not have the plaintiff C et al., who was not less than 3 years old at the time, wear an infant protection gear or safety bell in preparation for an accident while carrying the plaintiff C et al.