1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 21,095,771; and (b) KRW 4,330,842 to Plaintiff B; and (c) respectively, from December 30, 2011 to August 2017.

1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) Plaintiff A and B are married couple, and the Plaintiffs are represented driving technicians to the Plaintiff’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(B) On December 30, 201, when the Plaintiff’s vehicle was returning to Korea on December 30, 201, on December 30, 201, at the intersection between Ulsan-gu and Ulsan-gu, Seoul-do, and then the Plaintiff’s vehicle went to the two sking shooting range from the rosa bank of an industrial tower to the two sking shooting distance range according to the straight-line signal, the Defendant’s vehicle is deemed to be a “Defendant’s vehicle” (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”).

3) The Plaintiff-Appellant’s accident is an accident that causes a shock on the left-hand part of the Plaintiff-Appellant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) In the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as chinnassis, and Plaintiff B suffered injuries, such as chinnassis, etc., by which the detailed identity in which there is no open address in two parts, and Plaintiff B suffered injuries.

3) Meanwhile, the defendant is an insurance company that has entered into an acting driver insurance contract with a third party company to which an acting driver who has driven the defendant's vehicle belongs. [The defendant is an insurance company that has entered into an acting driver insurance contract with a third party to which a substitute driver who has driven the defendant's vehicle belongs.] The defendant's statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, No. 2

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant, who is the insurer of the substitute driving engineer driving the defendant vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s liability should be limited within 70% on the ground that the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not confirm the illegal left-hand turn of the Defendant’s vehicle, but did not confirm the fact that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was able to turn to the left, and in particular, the injured part suffered by the Plaintiffs at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiffs did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.

However, according to the description of Eul No. 2-2, the plaintiff's vehicle cross-section.