1. The Defendant: KRW 31,305,479 for each of the Plaintiff A and B; KRW 35,305,479 for each of them; and KRW 35,479 for each of them from April 8, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D is the E-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-Defendant vehicle”) around 07:40 on April 8, 2014.

A) A driver driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle, and driving his/her intersection in front of the Myeon Office in the Chyeong-si, Kimhae-si, and driving his/her Myeon road in front of the Myeon office, bypassing the straight-line signal to the straight-line ICT room. However, at the time, the crosswalk on the road at the time was a pedestrian signal, and as such, the crosswalk on the road at the time was a pedestrian signal, so he/she neglected his/her duty of care to prevent the occurrence of the accident, and even if he/she was negligent to prevent the occurrence of the accident,

2) The instant accident caused the death by shocking and shocking them (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiffs were the deceased’s children, and there was no deceased’s spouse at the time of the instant accident.

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. Limit of liability, however, the deceased's negligence of neglecting his duty of front-time care and neglecting his duty of front-time care is recognized, and the deceased's negligence is recognized as a result of the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage. Therefore, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 80%.

(Plaintiffs asserted that the Deceased was leading the bicycle to the bicycle, but according to Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 2-12, it can be acknowledged that the Deceased was on board the bicycle at the time of the instant accident). 2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The deceased’s lost income 1) Personal Gmar female (the remaining 59 years old and 10 months old at the time of the accident): The deceased’s lost income 27.89.