1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 137,589,301, and 135,089.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 28, 2016, at around 00:33, D taxi (hereinafter “Defendant-owned”), C driven a three-lane road in the Youngdo-dong in Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Defendant-owned vehicle”) and died due to the following: (a) while driving a three-lane road in the Youngdo-dong in the Seodo-dong in Busan Metropolitan City; (b) while driving a two-lane at a speed of about 69 km depending on the Si/Do police station’s diameter from the gate of the department store, he was unable to detect E going through the gate and got E in the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle; and (c) due to the said accident, E was killed due to the two-lane of the two external wounds.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) B.

The plaintiffs jointly inherited E as the parents of E, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle who has driven the vehicle in excess of the duty of care at night, and thus, the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the accident in this case

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, inasmuch as there was no negligence on the Defendant’s driver, or there was no causal relationship between the instant accident and the death of E, the Defendant’s driver did not act on the part of the Defendant’s driver, on the ground that E was driving at a speed not exceeding 15 km per hour at the time.

Therefore, as a result of the analysis of the operational record paper at the time of the instant accident, it is recognized that the e-mail SP Co., Ltd, which is the manufacturer of a recording device attached to the Defendant’s vehicle, sent a reply to the fact-finding inquiry at the time of the instant accident on the fact that the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident is less than 15km.

On the other hand, however, No. 6, No. 1 and No. 1.