1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 52,977,272 for Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 20,318,181 for the remaining Plaintiffs; and (c) each of them on October 16, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A and the denying net F are H G’s automobiles operated by G (hereinafter “victims”).

(1) On October 16, 2015, at the lower seat, the Defendant 1 was on the front of the GJ of Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do on October 16, 2015. However, on the opposite line, the Defendant 1 was a passenger car operated by K on the opposite line (hereinafter referred to as “Korea-do-do-ri vehicle”).

ii)A person was affected by the center line and received the front part of the damaged vehicle by the front part of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”);

The developments leading up to the instant traffic accident are as follows: (a) the networkF died at the site due to internal heat, etc. due to the instant traffic accident, etc.; (b) the Plaintiff A received rehabilitation treatment by undergoing surgery, such as a fladation of the upper left-hand flag, fladation of the upper left-hand flag, fladation of the upper left-hand flag; (c) fladation of the upper left-hand flag; and (d) fladation of the bones flag of the upper left-hand flag; and (e) fladation of the bones flag of the outer upper flag; and (e) rehabilitation treatment.

(A) “A driver, G” is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with a driver of a marine vehicle with K, and the Defendant is an insurance company that has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with a driver of a marine vehicle with K, for approximately 14 weeks of injury, such as 14 weeks of injury to the left-hand garment, and 1.3) A, who has suffered injury, such as mination of flady flady flafing, which requires approximately 8 weeks of treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, Eul evidence 2 and 3 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, since the instant traffic accident occurred due to the negligence of the vehicle in the household, the Defendant, who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the driver of the vehicle in the household, is an insurer, who is liable for the damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the

(c) argument that limitation of liability shall be made on the images of Nos. 2 and 3 as well as the images of No. 1.