1. The defendant's KRW 5,736,842 against the plaintiff A and each of them shall be the plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, G, H, and I respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The JJ is a vehicle of K around 19:58 on October 3, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) The network N (hereinafter referred to as “the network N”) where the front road located in L in Seosan is running at a speed of about 114 km per hour while driving the road at a speed of about 114 km per hour.

3) The instant accident was due to shocking and causing death (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 3 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above findings 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. Limit of liability: (a) the Deceased is also responsible for governance of a crosswalk in violation of pedestrian signal; and (b) such error is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages; (c) the Deceased’s fault in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant is liable for, but the Defendant’s liability is limited to 60% by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the arguments, such as the

2. Scope of liability for damages

(a) Personal information: A man, a man, or a woman between 82 and 9 months old at the time of the accident;

B. Since the Deceased was engaged in agriculture, forestry, and fishery at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiffs asserts that the daily income should be recognized based on the statistical income or the daily income of the workers engaged in male and livestock farming skilled for at least 10 years with experience as a result of the Deceased’s having earned income.

However, at the time of the instant accident, the deceased’s maximum working age was terminated, and only the evidence Nos. 5 through 16, and 19 was insufficient to recognize that the deceased actually earned income, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, the deceased’s lost income is difficult.