1. The defendant's KRW 59,204,869, and KRW 8,00,000 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 2,50,00,00 to the plaintiff C, D, and E, respectively.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 5, 2017, G driven a truck of H 4.5 tons H 20 H 4.5 tons (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on December 5, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and instead, G did not discover the Plaintiff A, who was walking on the right side of the Defendant vehicle, from the right side to the front side of the racing site to the front side of the racing area, and did not detect the Plaintiff A, who was walking on the right side of the J side in the direction of the passage to the front side of the racing, and shocked the front side of each bridge of the Plaintiff A with the front wheels of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A due to the instant accident, A suffered serious injury, such as other blood damage on the parts of the following bridge, external wound, stoke, stoke, proposed green teas, stoke, paper stoke, and paper stokes, due to the instant accident, and was implemented on December 7, 2017.

C. The instant accident was caused by G’s negligence, which neglected the duty of care on the road without distinction between the roadway and the sidewalk.

Plaintiff

B The wife, the plaintiff C, D, and E are children, and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator for the defendant's vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition: Evidence A(including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(i) entry in Category B(1) and the purport of the entire pleading

2. According to the above fact of recognition of the liability for damages caused by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that since the accident site of this case is frequently accessible to the entrance of the vehicle, there is no traffic safety facilities for pedestrians, such as crosswalks, at the vicinity of the entrance of the intersection, there is no traffic safety facilities for pedestrians, such as crosswalks, etc., it should be checked at a sufficient distance, and the road should be crossing the road after examining whether there is a vehicle for operation, but since the accident of this case occurred due to negligence in performing such duty of care, the defendant's responsibility should be limited. Thus, as argued by the defendant