1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 27,224,043 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 31,636,796 to Plaintiff C; (c) KRW 10,818,415 to Plaintiff D; and (d) KRW 5,00 to Plaintiff B.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B are married with, and Plaintiff C and D are their children. (2) On November 30, 2014, Plaintiff C and D were on the F car volume, and Plaintiff C and D stopped on the road in front of the village in the Gyeongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, G G, and the vehicle stopped on the road. The H car volume driven on the opposite side (hereinafter referred to as “H car”) turned out into a broom, and caused the Plaintiff’s vehicle in excess of the central line, while the H car volume drivened on the opposite side.

(3) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A’s vehicle was recovered from the instant accident. Plaintiff A was an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to harming vehicles, such as a motor vehicle’s injury, i.e., e., the upper right flag, e., e., e., e., e., e., the right flag, e., e., e., e., the right flag, e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., the left e., e., e., e., e., the e.,

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's entries in Gap's Nos. 1 through 3, 5, 7, 9, 17 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as an insurer of a sea-going vehicle.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each of the corresponding items in the separate list of damages calculation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but less than a month and less than a won shall be discarded.

The calculation of the current value at the time of the accident shall be based on the reduction rate of 5/12 percent per month to deduct the interim interest.

In addition, it is rejected that the parties' arguments are not stated separately.

【Plaintiff A’s ground for recognition: A without dispute, entry of evidence Nos. 4 and 12, and the director of the I Hospital outside of this Court and J.