1. Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) A are 10,313,144 won, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) B and C respectively.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around 23:00 on October 3, 2014, D driving a rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a three-lane road in front of the front door of Seoul High School located in Seocho-gu Seoul High School, Seocho-gu, Seoul High School (hereinafter “Seoul High School”), along the two-lanes from the long-distance bank of Seoul High School to the long-distance bank of 60km in the speed. D was negligent in failing to well see the front side and the left side of the road, and caused the F (hereinafter “the deceased”), which was dried up on the right side of the Defendant vehicle, to go beyond the road, by shocking the front part of the vehicle, in contravention of the pedestrian signal from the right side of the mast direction, and on March 21, 2015, the Deceased died of the after-hand transmission and treatment of the G hospital by a marculous mal colon on March 21, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Plaintiff

A is the deceased's wife, and the plaintiff B and C are the children of the deceased, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has concluded a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 7, 24, 25 evidence, Eul 3 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the facts of the occurrence of liability for damages and the recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case unless there are special circumstances.

B. According to the above evidence, the road at the location of the accident in this case is installed a crosswalk for pedestrians. At the time of the accident in this case, the defendant's vehicle is proceeding in accordance with the vehicle signal, but the deceased's unauthorized crossing of the road on pedestrian red signal is recognized, and the deceased's fault seems to have caused the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case. Thus, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 50%.

(2) The defendant is running normally as D is in line with the progress of the vehicle.