1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 95,811,635, and KRW 500,000 for each of the said money and each of the said money from January 4, 2013.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) D means the E rocketing cab (hereinafter “Defendant”) around January 4, 2013, around 02:51, 2013.

) A driver driving a vehicle and driving a two-lane road in the vicinity of the upper limit of the upper limit of the road between the upper limit of the 0,000 square meters and the upper limit of the 0,000 square meters, and driving a two-lane from the upper limit of the water surface to the two-lanes of the water surface, and changing the course into one-lane. D is a F-driving G taxi (hereinafter referred to as “victimd vehicle”) which is fixed and stopped due to a prior accident due to a change of the lane due to a negligence of neglecting the front limit of

) The front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the front left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the front side of the taxi’s front side of the damaged vehicle was shocked by the front side of the damaged vehicle’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A, who was on board the seat next to the driver’s seat of the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, suffered injuries, such as salt ties, tensions, etc. in the Hashean.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the Plaintiff’s children, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate for the Plaintiff’s damages arising from the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity for the Defendant’s vehicle. C) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking account of the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to support this. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected. [The grounds of recognition] The Defendant’s assertion is without dispute, and there is no evidence to support the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety belt

2. It shall be in addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of liability for damages.