1. The defendant,

A. Plaintiff A: KRW 4,00,000 for each of the KRW 755,054,730, Plaintiff B, and Plaintiff C, and each of them on May 2012.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D On May 1, 2012, at around 19:00, driving a Berne or a car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving ahead of G, which is located in F at the macro-si, with a view to getting off the string of fishing gear.

It is a place where wild animals frequently fall, and at the time, it was difficult for the surface to be cut off due to the malfunction of the wild animals at that time. In such a case, drivers have the duty of care to reduce speed and drive safely by keeping the right and the right and the right well.

However, D, without neglecting the above duty of care, found a street booming along the road due to negligence that is going through as it is, and tried to escape immediately, the electric poles, which were on the right side of the road, shocked into the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A, as a assistant local office operating assistant personnel belonging to HH-si Office, he gets on the top of the steering unit of the Defendant vehicle driven by D, who is an employee of the said personnel, due to the accident in this case, he was injured by the damage of sea water, the bones of trees, the bones of trees, the stomas, etc.

C. Plaintiffs B and C are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, 7-7 each entry and video

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle, and is liable for the plaintiffs' property and mental damage caused by the accident in this case.

B. Determination 1 on the Defendant’s claim on the Defendant’s limitation of liability (1) the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not perform his duty to promote safe operation, 1) the Plaintiff was a public official belonging to the Si, such as the Plaintiff A left the Defendant’s vehicle without compensation after completing the instant event on the date of the instant accident, and he had the same operational purpose and operational profit as D, which is the workplace rent.