1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A 17,423,076 won, the plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F each of the above 10,615,384 won and each of the above 10,615,384 won.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The grounds for liability 1) G is as follows: (a) HH M&A car around 20:00 on April 22, 2012 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving a previous vehicle while driving the vehicle and driving the road near the remote distance of the original station in the middle of the original station in the middle of the main station in the front city in the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front, while keeping the operation condition of the previous vehicle in good condition and keeping the safe distance when the previous vehicle stops, in spite of its duty of care to maintain and safely drive the safe distance, and neglecting to drive the previous vehicle in close vicinity and to neglect the front of the vehicle of the front city of the front city of the front city of the front city, the back part of the previous vehicle which is stopped according to the stop signal due to negligence and negligence, shall be called the front part of the

(A) On May 16, 2012, around 16:35, 201, the Plaintiff caused the death of a deceased person (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B, C, D, E, and F are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant’s argument on the Defendant alleged to the effect that the instant accident was a minor accident as a mere subsequent accident, and thus it is difficult to recognize the causal relationship between the instant accident and the deceased’s death. However, considering the evidence and the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, the following circumstances, namely, ① clearly indicated the deceased’s death diagnosis report (No. 5) as an external personnel due to a traffic accident, ② G received a final judgment of conviction (C. 2013No. 2015) due to the crime resulting in the death of the deceased who was on board the Defendant’s first class while driving the Defendant’s vehicle, and ③ the fact inquiry results with the Korean Compensation Medical Association.