1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 500,00 for each of the Plaintiff A and B and KRW 150,812,236 for each of the Plaintiff C and D, and each of them on August 6, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) E is a Flearning car around 10:10 on August 6, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) At the time of the operation of the driving of the vehicle, the vehicle was driven at a speed of about 74 km in the speed of 50 km in the front of the road, due to the negligence of neglecting the front of the road in the state where the snow of the front is the real name of the wind and the left eye of the snow of the road, and due to the negligence of neglecting the front of the road in the state where the snow of the wind of the road was deteriorated, the vehicle was sent back to the front of the left part of the vehicle, and the vehicle died at H hospital around 11:23 on the same day, and G was killed by the chest and the blood ple in the front of the left part of the vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) Plaintiff A and B are parents of G, and Plaintiff C and D are students of G. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute, the evidence Nos. 2, 3, 7, and 9 (including part numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

B. According to the fact that the defendant's liability for damages was acknowledged, since the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of driving the defendant's vehicle by neglecting the duty of prior watch, the defendant, who is the insurer, is liable to compensate the plaintiffs who are G and their family members for the damage of this case.

C. 1) However, with respect to water signal at the construction site of a road where the passage of a vehicle is frequent for G, negligence is recognized as having neglected the duty of care to promote safety on its own at a sufficient distance from the workplace and the point where the traffic of the vehicle is conducted, and such negligence was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage, and thus, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80%. 2) The Defendant must take safety measures so that vehicles can safely pass at the road construction site, which is the business owner of G, I, Changwon, or Jinhae-gu Office, and the signer.