1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall have the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) KRW 1,141,375, and KRW 600,000, Plaintiff C, D, and E respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) F is deemed as the Defendant’s vehicle around July 5, 2012, around 21:26, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant”)

(2) On the 3-lane road in Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan City internal-dong 72-dong, Jongno-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) the Plaintiff, who opened the crosswalk on the left side of the Defendant vehicle, was driving along the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as blood species, ductals, ductals, ductal waves, etc. due to the instant accident.

3) Plaintiff B’s wife, Plaintiff C’s children, Plaintiff D, and E are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap 1-4, 7, and Eul evidence 2 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, was injured by the plaintiff A due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring any special circumstance, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs as the insurer of the defendant vehicle. 2) The defendant asserts that the accident of this case was caused by the negligence that the plaintiff A, while at night, was under the influence of alcohol and crossing the crosswalk to the pedestrian red signal, and that the driver of the defendant vehicle could not expect the driver of the defendant vehicle without the permission of the plaintiff A, and it should be exempted because there was no negligence since he could not avoid the accident of this case.

The main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that "a person who operates an automobile for his/her own sake shall be liable to compensate for the damages caused by the death or injury of another person due to the operation of the automobile," and it does not prevent whether the driver has acted intentionally or negligently.