1. As to Plaintiff A, the Defendant: (a) KRW 78,523,644; (b) KRW 45,682,429; and (c) KRW 45,682,429; and each of the said money, from April 2, 2017 to April 2, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1 C are as follows:

2. At around 05:40, while driving a DN motor vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) in a state that normal operation is difficult due to the influence of the ethyl lux (excluding the water exemption containing the strokem designated as a psychotropic drug) and driving a stroke in the direction of the Defendant vehicle at the right side of the direction of the vehicle along the influence of the above drug while driving a stroke in the direction of the two lanes along the 5rd side of the 5rd side of Gangnam-gu Seoul, Seocho-gu, Seoul, along the direction of the two lanes, along the 27rd side of the 5rd side of the road, the vehicle killed E by shocking the direction of the vehicle from the right side of the direction of the Defendant vehicle to the upper part of the front part of

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident,” and E. (2) The Plaintiff’s wife of the Deceased, the Plaintiff’s wife, and the Deceased’s children, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in the evidence Nos. 4 and 11, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant as he neglected his duty to safely cross the vehicle by taking into account the flow of the vehicle in preparation for the deceased’s vehicle to have a vehicle in violation of signal while walking the crosswalk at night, such errors should be taken into account. However, the instant accident was caused by the Defendant’s failure to recognize the deceased who is crossing the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian name due to the driving of the Defendant’s stroke, and alone, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was insufficient to prove the deceased who was walking the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian name.