1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 84,435,683; and (b) against Plaintiff B and C, KRW 56,623,788, respectively; and (c) against each said money, June 9, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact-finding 1) E is a F Vehicle around 17:05 on June 9, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

i)A vehicle J (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff vehicle”) of I driver’s vehicle operating along the I driver’s vehicle driving along the median road, which was driven by the median line along the center of the road facing one lane in front of the vehicle driving at the right bend, while driving along one lane from the three-lane distance from the main road of the Shilsan-si Si. Gun (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

) The front part of the Defendant vehicle was shocked in front of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff died due to the instant accident

(hereinafter referred to as “I”. 3) The Plaintiff’s wife, Plaintiff B, and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. 【In the absence of any dispute as to the ground for recognition, Party A’s entries, Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including all documentary evidence attached with serial numbers),

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the Defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.

C. The Defendant asserts that the deceased’s negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the deceased should compensate for, on the ground that the deceased’s head immediately after the instant accident occurred and the bridge was moved to the driver’s seat outside the driver’s seat, but did not wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 12, the driver’s seat of the plaintiff vehicle immediately after the accident in this case is acknowledged to have been entered into a safety belt and a burner, and there is no other evidence to deem that the deceased did not wear the safety belt at the time of the accident in this case.