1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 128,971,257 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from July 22, 2017 to November 28, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is the Fsi around 03:27 on July 22, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver of Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, driving his four-lanes in front of Yongsan-gu, Seoul, with the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) that crosses H, which crosses the right from the left side to the upper part of the cryp underground street car from the southsan 3 tunnel to the upper part of the cryp road of green company underground (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) On July 31, 2017, H (hereinafter “the deceased”) suffered from injury due to the instant accident, and died of low carbon cerebral brain damage around 17:19.

3) The Plaintiff A and B are the parents of the Deceased. On December 30, 2017, during the instant lawsuit, B died and took over the legal proceedings by C, the inheritor. The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [In the absence of any dispute, A’s 1 through 3, and Eul’s 1 through 9

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s 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’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was in the central safety zone in the state of the safety zone, and the driver of the defendant vehicle, without any negligence, and the defendant did not hold liability for damages against the deceased and the plaintiffs.

However, considering the speed of the Defendant’s vehicle, the point where the Deceased was crossing the central line safety zone, the distance between the Deceased and the Defendant’s vehicle, and the interval between time and the point of collision, if the Defendant’s driver fulfilled the main duty of care on the front side and the surrounding areas, it would be deemed that the collision with the Deceased could be avoided or reduced through the action of operation or avoidance. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

(c).