1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 31,352,43, Plaintiff B, Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D, Plaintiff E, and Plaintiff F respectively; and (b) KRW 18,634,955.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 21:30 on November 4, 2014, Non-Party G: (a) had a duty of care to accurately operate steering and operating steering and steering devices, and the Non-Party G shocked Non-Party G (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) the Non-Party G (hereinafter referred to as “the accident”), who was approaching the sea-going vehicle, with a view to releasing the street connected between the wing vehicle and the Track Track Track Track Track Track Track Track Track Track Track Track, which was being treated by the Hack Hack Hack Ha (hereinafter referred to as “Gack Hack”) around 0:01 on November 18, 2014; and (b) the deceased’s heir due to cerebral cerebriform and cerebral mack Mack Hack Hack Hack Ha, the deceased’s.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 2 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is responsible for compensating the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

C. However, according to the above evidence, there is a possibility for the Deceased to have a harming vehicle driven by the deceased, and the remaining lighting, etc. were operated, but there is a negligence on the harming Vehicle, and the deceased's negligence was also caused by the occurrence of the instant accident.

Therefore, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by comprehensively taking into account all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case, such as the deceased’s negligence, the background and result of the instant accident.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The actual income loss equivalent to the monetary total value of the capacity to operate as a result of the instant accident is as follows (i).