1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 304,374,825, Plaintiff B’s KRW 299,374,825, and each of the said money from February 22, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D D is under the influence of alcohol around 01:58 on February 22, 2019, while under the influence of alcohol by 0.137% on blood alcohol level, D is the E Copi-sports cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) While driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving it along the shotcho-sloping distance in the Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, from the direction of the orchard to the sloping distance, the Defendant’s vehicle escaped without taking necessary measures, such as shocking into the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and providing rescue to the injured party (hereinafter “instant traffic accident”).

2) Around 02:25 on the same day, F died due to an accident in the instant case.

(hereinafter referred to as “F”. 3) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. 【In the absence of any dispute”, “A” or “B” or “B” or “B” (numbered numbered numbered number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case, unless there are special circumstances, since the deceased died due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

C. Determination on the limitation of liability claim 1) Since the Defendant’s walking signal on the crosswalk that the Defendant asserted was on-and-off signal, there was a duty of care to ensure his safety by walking along by examining the movement of the vehicle driven by the deceased as well. Since the Deceased violated such a duty of care by cutting the crosswalk at night, the Defendant’s responsibility should be limited to 90% in consideration of these circumstances. 2) According to each description of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant’s responsibility should be limited to 1 and 2.