1. The Defendants respectively to each of the Plaintiffs A 27,62,290 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively to KRW 300,000, Plaintiff D, E, F, and G. 100.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 01:18 on April 25, 2009, Defendant H driven an I salary-feng vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) that was subscribed to an automobile comprehensive insurance policy of Defendant C CF, and suffered injury, such as SPcheon, etc., by shocking Plaintiff A, who was under the influence of the Busan JK Police Station in the direction of the Busan JK Police Station, while driving a I salary-feng vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with no signal, etc. in front of the KK restaurant located in Busan J., and driving it directly at the direction of the Busan JK Police Station in the right direction of the Busan JK Police Station, the Defendant H sustained the Plaintiff A, who was under the influence of drinking on the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff D and E are their siblings, Plaintiff F and G are their dependents.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 13, 14, 15, 17, 19, 21, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of the determination, Defendant H is the operator of Defendant vehicle, and Defendant C is the insurer of Defendant vehicle, and Defendant C is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. However, the limitation of liability is limited, however, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s negligence on the road under the influence of alcohol at night did not pay attention to the vehicle coming to him/her, and the above error was caused by the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, the Plaintiff’s negligence is deemed 25% in light of the above facts, and the Defendants’ liability is limited to 75% in view of the above facts.

The Defendants asserted that the negligence of the Plaintiff A should be considered to be more than 70%, since the Defendants did not discover the parts of the uniforms while Plaintiff A was under the influence of alcohol while playing on the road.

Therefore, in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings, Defendant H is the intersection in which “Defendant H” is the case, taking into account each of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 11, 15, 20-1, 20, and 6 of evidence Nos. 11, 13-1, 15, and 6.