1. The Defendant: 13,752,135 won to the Appointed B, 5,834,757 won to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), 3, D, and E respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) F is a Gene motor vehicle around 19:50 on August 17, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant motor vehicle”).

) While driving Ha and driving Ha and driving Ha, while driving Ha and driving Ha and driving Ha, the two-lanes of the two-lanes of national highways No. 15 national highways on the south-west Scari Do, are proceeding from the grari Dop to the private tunnel slope, H (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

3) The deceased, on the part of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, caused the death of the deceased due to the long-term damage to diversity at the site (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Appointor B is an insurer who has entered into an automobile insurance contract with F and Liability Insurance (Liability Insurance), which bears responsibility for the portion exceeding the amount payable by the deceased’s wife, the Plaintiff and the Appointor C, D, and E, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into another automobile insurance contract with the Defendant.

3) Meanwhile, the Hyundai Maritime Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is an insurer which has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract including “unlimited-liability insurance (100,000,000 won in the case of death)” with the content that the insured and any other person than his/her spouse do not pay insurance proceeds for an insured vehicle in the course of driving an insured vehicle (F is not a named insured or designated driver of the special terms).

(ii) [founded grounds for recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 4, and 6 (including branch numbers if any); hereinafter the same shall apply);

- Each entry in Eul-B or 8 and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, the defendant is an insurer for excess liability insurance, and is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

C. As to the Defendant’s assertion on limitation of liability, the Defendant’s judgment on the road where the instant accident occurred is inconsistent.