1. The defendant is about KRW 124,371,368 to the plaintiff A, KRW 2 million to the plaintiff B, and KRW 800,000 to the plaintiff C and D respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. In fact, while under the influence of alcohol at around 01:10 on August 24, 2012, E driving a motor vehicle of F-A-Wn-Wn (hereinafter “instant motor vehicle”) with a blood alcohol level of 0.185% (hereinafter “the instant motor vehicle”) and proceeding the frontway located in G in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do as a saltpori-distance flooding surface on the front side of the H-Wn-gu. On the opposite side, the Plaintiff’s driver was flicking the central line due to negligence, and caused the Plaintiff’s injury, such as the left-hand sliding of the opening frame of the left-hand slot line, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the children of Plaintiff A.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance for the automobile of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 3 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The Defendant’s liability for damages is the insurer of the instant passenger car, and is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. The defendant's assertion argues that the plaintiff A operated a truck in violation of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act in one lane, not a two-lane, and that the car in this case was negligent while knowing that the vehicle in this case goes beyond the central line.

Generally, a motor vehicle driver who operates a road along which a median line is installed along his/her own lane is generally aware that the motor vehicle from which he/she is sailing is in compliance with his/her own lane. Therefore, unless there are special circumstances in which the other motor vehicle could anticipate abnormal operation, the other motor vehicle does not have a duty of care to expect the other motor vehicle to drive the motor vehicle even if it enters the center line.

(See Supreme Court Decision 200Da58606 delivered on February 9, 2001, etc.). In light of the fact that the instant accident occurred beyond the central line in drinking condition and shocking the Plaintiff’s freight vehicle, Plaintiff A operated on one-lane basis. In light of the fact that the instant accident occurred, Plaintiff A operated on one-lane basis.