1. The Defendant: (a) from November 11, 2015, the Plaintiff 216,764,096 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively, and each of them.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) E is a Fcar at around 22:50 on November 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

) A while driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle, while driving a three-lane road in front of H in the window G of Changwon City along two-lanes from the Do office to the Changwon Tri-distance, the plaintiff A, who crossed the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signals from the right side of the course to the left side of the vehicle of this case, by negligence in violation of the signal, was assigned beyond the floor to the front side of the vehicle of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

2) In the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as Dam cerebral cerebral A and Offset aggregate.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A. The Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle. [The grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 3 evidence (including partial numbers, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the driver of the instant vehicle is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs as the insurer of the instant vehicle, inasmuch as the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of operating the instant vehicle in violation of the signal, although the driver of the instant vehicle has a duty of care to verify whether there is a person to build the crosswalk, and to safely drive the instant vehicle in accordance with the new code, and to prevent the accident in advance.

C. The defendant asserts whether to limit liability is "the plaintiff should have taken into account the surrounding areas whether there is a vehicle driven by the plaintiff A, and should have been crossinged, but there is negligence in failing to properly implement it."

However, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the whole arguments adopted earlier, E goes beyond the crosswalk by violating the signal signal prior to the entry of the crosswalk, even if the signal already changed to the red signal, and goes against the pedestrian signals.