1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 265,167,521 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from January 16, 2018 to December 19, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D is a vehicle E in around 07:00 on January 16, 2018 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

ii)A car driven by a plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff vehicle") that found and driven a car model that stops on the front side due to a malfunction while driving in two lanes near the F-lanes in the southyang-si, the direction of the two-lane between the two-lanes in the vicinity of the F-do.

) The back part of the Defendant vehicle was shocked with the front part of the front part of the Defendant vehicle to receive the rear part of the said car truck (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result, H on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “the deceased”) died due to brain injury around 07:56 on the same day.

3) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer that concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, and the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 7 (including paper numbers,

B. According to the facts 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. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability in consideration of the negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was proceeding prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, was aware that the truck was stopped and operated rapidly, and the instant accident occurred.

However, the accident of this case is only caused by the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who failed to secure a safety distance, and it is difficult to see that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle who operated the Dong in accordance with the traffic situation was negligent. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item of the annexed table of calculation of damages, and the period for calculation convenience shall be calculated on a monthly basis, but shall be calculated on a monthly basis.