1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 788,545,460, and KRW 5,000,000 to Plaintiff B, the Defendant starting from November 17, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) Facts of recognition 1) D means the E-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 06:55 on November 17, 2014.

(B) On the front side of the Defendant, the Plaintiff, while driving his vehicle and driving his vehicle at Pyeongtaek-si F, was in violation of the stop signal of the cross-road intersection in front of the G store in front of the G store in the direction of both strings in the direction of both sides while driving in the direction of both sides, sent the crosswalk in front of the Defendant vehicle to the right side along with the pedestrian signal from the left side of the moving direction of the vehicle to the right side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) As a result, Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as Plaintiff A’s her mother and a mutual aider who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Defendant on the motor vehicle. A) Plaintiff B is a mother of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aider who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. Whether the liability is limited or not, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability on the ground that the Plaintiff was negligent in crossinging the crosswalk by making the Plaintiff believe only the pedestrian signal and without considering its surroundings. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff neglected the duty of front-way and left-way drinking at the time of the instant accident, or neglected the duty of care to protect the safety and protection of his body, and there is no reason to recognize the Defendant’s liability to the Plaintiff A who crossing the crosswalk according to the pedestrian signal (the Defendant’s liability is 10%). 2. The damages amount other than the matter stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.