1. As to the plaintiff A, the defendant succeeding intervenor KRW 62,959,363, the plaintiff B, and C respectively, and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 10:15 on March 30, 2014, D driven the E Fexton vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven the road front of the Seoul Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the water basin from the offside of three streets. At that time, there was a vehicle signal, etc. in the front section of the road to be operated within the speed of 70km per hour, and thus, the vehicle signal, etc. was observed at the speed of the front section of the road at that time, and even though there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle in accordance with the vehicle driving signals, even if there was a duty of care to safely drive the vehicle, the speed of restriction was exceeded 58km per hour by negligence in the front speed of about 128km at the right side of the moving direction (hereinafter “accident in this case”), D was killed on March 3, 2014 as the front part of the driver’s seat of the H bargaining vehicle that was driven from the left side of the moving direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A is the husband of the deceased G (hereinafter “the deceased”), the Plaintiff B, and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

(3) On May 27, 2015, the Defendant’s successor transferred the entire business from the Defendant, and succeeded to the status of the insurer under the said insurance contract, and succeeded to the instant lawsuit on August 5, 2015.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2, and 12 evidence (including branch numbers if there are virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) each entry and video, and the purport of the entire pleadings]

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant succeeding intervenor is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case, and the claim against the defendant who transferred the status of the insurance contract is without merit.

C. However, according to each of the above evidence, the Deceased’s view at the time of the instant accident, despite the fact that the driver’s view was sufficiently secured at the time of the instant accident, is likely to make an intern without examining the surrounding road conditions.