1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 18,382,544; (b) KRW 31,073,816 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 31,073,816 to each of the said money.

1. Basic facts

A. On February 4, 2016, the Defendant driving a D car at around 19:25, and driving the D car at the lower end of Incheon, followed by the strengthening of the lower end of the west-gun of Incheon, a one-lane road (60km at a speed of about 73km at a speed of about 73km at a speed of speed.

B. At this place, the intersection abutting on the village entrance is adjacent to the intersection, and at the opposite direction of the defendant, there was a bus stop, making it difficult for ordinary pedestrians to cross the road without permission.

Therefore, a driver who passed this place has a duty of care to reduce speed and drive safely by checking well the front door.

C. Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected to perform the above duty of care, and continuously driven the road to the right side from the left side of the Defendant’s running direction at the time-marine, and the Defendant shocked E without permission from the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) D.

E was transferred to the F Hospital after the instant accident occurred, but the E died due to a prop-propact-propact, etc. around 20:10 on February 4, 2016.

E. A, who is a bereaved family member of the network E, has the Plaintiff A and her husband, who is a child.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and 9 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs, who are the deceased E and their bereaved families, due to the instant accident, because the Defendant neglected the duty of care as a driver and caused the instant accident.

However, there was a crosswalk in the vicinity of the accident site of this case, and the defendant was driving in compliance with the signal, and the defendant was faced with the accident at the point where the road was already passing through the crosswalk, and the accident of this case was faced with the network E in an unreasonable manner, and at the time, it is deemed that the defendant was difficult for him to detect the network E and reduce the speed immediately. Thus, the circumstances indicated in the records and the whole pleadings of this case are as follows.