1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 92,815,673, KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff C and each of the above amounts.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Nonparty D’s vehicle for Eone Star and event (hereinafter “Korea-Japan vehicle”) around July 26, 2010 on July 20:15, 2010

(ii) while driving a Party and driving a vehicle in the direction of the Korea Cadastral Corporation in the direction of the Goi-gu, Seoi-gu, Seoi-gu, Seoi-gu, Goi-si, Goi-si, Goi-si, driving a central line, neglecting its duty of care to safely proceed without breaking the front line and the center line, and neglecting its duty of care to safely proceed on the opposite line, thereby infringing upon the central line. The Plaintiff A’s F Newgol (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(1) The Plaintiff did not discover the U.S. and caused injury to A, as the left wheel part of the A.S. vehicle, the upper right part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was shocked to the upper right part of the Plaintiff’s left wheel, caused the Plaintiff to suffer from the Plaintiff’s injury, such as No. 4-5 (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the child of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the household vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3-1, 2, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the insurer of the Livebya vehicle unless there are special circumstances.

C. The Defendant asserts that, in order to avoid a vehicle parked at the right edge of the road where the instant accident occurred, the instant vehicle was invaded with the median line and returned to its own subordinate line in order to avoid the vehicle that was parked at the right edge of the road where the instant accident occurred, and the Plaintiff A showed in advance that the instant vehicle was invaded and operated by the median line. As such, the Plaintiff neglected his duty of care, such as taking appropriate defensive driving measures, and the Plaintiff’s negligence should also be considered.

In general, a driver of a motor vehicle operating a road with a central line along his/her own lane shall be drinking.