1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 472,891,400 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum for the period from October 7, 2016 to September 21, 2018; and (b).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C is a person engaged in the duties of vicarious driving, and D around October 7, 2016, around 04:19 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

E-five vehicles owned by the EW (hereinafter referred to as “first vehicle”)

() On behalf of the deceased, the above vehicle was driven on the back seat of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and 414.7 km from the Busan Highway located in Seocho-gu, Seocho-gu, Seoul Metropolitan Government on the side of the main road, which was traveling along one-lane of the five-lanes of the main road from the main road of the metropolitan metropolitan area to the main road of the metropolitan metropolitan area of the metropolitan metropolitan area, and stopped the central separation zone of the expressway due to the roadside driving (hereinafter “the first accident”).

(C) On and after the above accident, C, under the influence of alcohol, called the Deceased’s off from the back seat, immediately left the first vehicle, and the Deceased also left the front door of the vehicle according to C’s instructions. F, around 04:20 on the same day, on the same day, Gschton car (hereinafter referred to as “second vehicle”).

In the case of operating the vehicle and driving the vehicle at a speed of about 101.3 km per hour, the deceased, who was left behind the vehicle without finding up until close to the deceased, was in the front part of the vehicle of the defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as “the second accident”. Accordingly, the Deceased’s death at around 05:07 on the same day (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant accident”). 2) The Plaintiff is a dependent of the Deceased, and the Defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile driver insurance contract with C with C. It is a fact that there is no dispute [based on recognition], and Nos. 1 through 7 (including paper numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply).

Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the facts found as above, the deceased, who was drunk, without immediately moving the first vehicle to a safe place or without installing the "mark in the case of a garage, etc." as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act, after the occurrence of the first accident due to the driving of a roadside, stopped the first vehicle on an expressway (limited to illegal stopping on an expressway), at the rear of the accident site.