1. The Defendant: 92,369,284 won to Plaintiff A; 37,423,447 won to Plaintiff B; 4,267,200 won to Plaintiff C; and 2,000 won to Plaintiff D.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 29, 2012, Plaintiff A and B were in the course of getting on a van (G; hereinafter “instant passenger car”) operated by the “E Religious Organization FIE”) conference located at the time of leisure, and returning to the house after being transferred to the house after being transferred to the Japanese student.

The driver of the instant passenger vehicle concealed a bus stopping on the bus platform due to negligence in violation of the duty to secure a safety distance in the Ha village platform at the time of the influence of the entire south of the city.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered from the injury, such as the cutting of the frame, closedness, thring of the Athroke, the cutting of the Athroke, the cutting of the Athroke, the cutting of the Athroke, the cutting of the thalute, the thalute, the thalute of the Athalute, the loss of the Athalute (12) of the Athalute of the thalute, the injury caused by the injury of the Plaintiff B, such as the injury on the left-hand hand, the left-hand hand, the upper part of the stalute of the Athal part of the Astalute

C. Plaintiff C and D are the parents of Plaintiff A and B, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive insurance contract on the instant passenger car, which is the vehicle for the instant accident, with the E Religious Organization Flus Association.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. (1) According to the above fact of recognition, the accident of this case occurred due to the operation of the passenger car of this case. Thus, the defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance with the Fent Association of Religious Organizations, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

(2) The defendant asserts that the limitation of liability should be reduced inasmuch as the accident of this case occurred while the plaintiff A and B died in and returned to the same for the purpose of each subparagraph of this case.

However, if the victim was involved in an accident while driving the vehicle without compensation, the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, and the victim.