1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 37,342,430 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 34,342,430 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 34,342,430 to each of the said money, from August 11, 2012 to August 2013.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C is the DPoter II vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 20:05 on August 11, 2012.

) He driving his own Ha (H, alien registration I; hereinafter referred to as “the network”) with the two lanes in front of the Fmat in front of the E in terms of harmony, due to the negligence of failing to properly examine the front section while driving the two lanes in front of the G hotel room on the old 4-ri side, and directly crossing the road on the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s running direction.

A) Around 20:18 on the same day, the Defendant’s front-hander was shocked to the Defendant’s vehicle, resulting in the death due to the dystrokes of dystroke, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff B is the deceased’s child, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] A without dispute, each entry (including each number) in Gap evidence 1 to 5, the result of the commission of document forwarding to the head of the Suwon District Court of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the bereaved family members of the deceased and the deceased, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle due to the instant accident.

C. Limit of liability: (a) the Deceased’s fault was found to cross the three-lanes without permission at night; and (b) such error was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage; (c) thus, the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 60% by taking this into account.

(1) The plaintiff asserted that the deceased was to collapse at the time of the accident of this case, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge this only with the entries of Gap evidence 11 and the result of the commission of document forwarding to the Suwon District Court of this Court, and there is no other evidence to prove this differently, and the above assertion is not accepted).