1. The Defendant: 54,940,876 won, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C respectively, and each of them on January 22, 2015.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The occurrence of responsibility: (1) On January 22, 2015, 21:35, D driving the E Carrens Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”); (2) on the deceased’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C, the deceased’s children; (3) on the part of the Defendant vehicle’s body, the owner of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, the Defendant is not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s comprehensive insurance contract on the foregoing vehicle, and the Defendant is not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s owner of the vehicle, and the Defendant is not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s oral argument and evidence Nos. 16 through 4; and (4) on the ground that, on the other hand, the Defendant is not liable for damages to the Plaintiff’s insurer, the owner of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, and the owner of the vehicle, the Defendant could not be found to have suffered damages to the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

B. According to the evidence, prior to the limitation of liability, if the net F, at the time, cross-road width signals on the crosswalks without permission in a red state, the signal signals on the crosswalks are cut off.

Inasmuch as negligence caused by the instant accident is recognized, and such negligence also contributed to the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the instant accident, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 55%, taking into account all circumstances, such as the content of the deceased’s negligence, the distance between the location where the instant accident occurred and the crosswalk, the time at which the instant accident occurred, the clothes of the deceased at the time of the occurrence, road conditions, etc.

2. The following facts are stated in Gap evidence No. 12 and Eul evidence No. 3 in the evidence mentioned above: