1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 14,323,127 for each Plaintiff; and (b) 5% per annum from September 9, 2016 to December 16, 2016 for each Plaintiff; and (c) thereafter.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 22:50 on April 21, 2015, E driven a F Truck (hereinafter referred to as “franchising vehicle”) and was going to run along the border at the time of permanent display, while putting in parallel the central line, and shocked the franchis of the G truck of the Plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “victim’s truck”) of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was mast in the opposite line, with the franchising of the vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Although the Plaintiff, a driver of the instant accident, did not deal with the instant accident, the Plaintiff, the owner of the victimized vehicle, spent KRW 1,700,00 for towing expenses, and the damaged vehicle was destroyed to the extent of KRW 26,946,255 for repairing expenses.

Consolidated E died on April 27, 2015, and the Defendants are children of E.

【Ground for Recognition: Each entry (including a number, if any) in Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, and the purport of the whole pleadings】

B. According to the above facts of recognition, E, as a driver of a sea-going vehicle, is liable for damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident, and the Defendants inherited each one-half of the damages liability against the Plaintiff.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The facts that the Plaintiff spent KRW 1,700,000 for towing and repair costs, and that the damaged vehicle is destroyed to an extent equivalent to KRW 26,946,255 for repair costs, are acknowledged as above.

D. Accordingly, the amount of property damages arising from the instant accident is KRW 28,646,255 (=1,700,000). (26,946,255)

B. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay consolation money of KRW 10,000,00 to the plaintiff, since he received mental impulses due to the accident of this case.

She generally, in case where the property right of another person is infringed by the tort, the mental suffering shall also be deemed to have been restored by the compensation for the property damage, so if there is any irrecoverable mental damage by the compensation for the property damage, it shall be the perpetrator as a damage due to special circumstances.