1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 28,782,942, Plaintiff B, D, and E respectively; and (b) KRW 23,938,628 to Plaintiff C; and (c) KRW 23,938,628 to Plaintiff C.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is F and G Poter Ⅱ (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

2) On July 26, 2014, F, as follows, was driving the Defendant vehicle on the side of the Defendant vehicle in front of the right side of the Defendant vehicle while driving the vehicle on the farm road located in Seosan-si, Seosan-si, and driving it on the right side of the Defendant vehicle and driving it on the front side of the Defendant vehicle while bypassing from 200 to Y, and immediately stop the Defendant vehicle, while continuing to proceed without stopping it, the trees located on the right side of the farming road located in front of the 10th National Land Management and Utilization Act.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident.” At this time, I led to a volume of 2 to 3 meters which is attributable to the part on the part below the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and reached the death due to dives damage at the site (hereinafter “the deceased”). 3) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E. [the grounds for recognition: Facts that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, Eul’s evidence 15, Eul’s evidence 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damage suffered by the deceased, etc. due to the accident of this case as an insurer.

C. The Defendant’s limitation of liability asserts that the FF gathered the mother of 81 years of age and scambly driven, and that the Deceased’s negligence should be reflected at least 30% of the Deceased’s negligence as an accident that occurred with the wind that occurred out of the fright area of the fright to be left of the fright, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the instant accident occurred due to the reasons alleged.

However, in the above circumstances of the accident, the deceased also did not sufficiently look at the surrounding area on the road without distinction between the roadway and India. Since such error was caused by the accident of this case and the expansion of damages, the defendant's liability is limited to 95%.

(5% of the fault ratio of the deceased) 2. The damages amount in addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.