1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 84,075,115 to Plaintiff B; and (b) KRW 39,825,785 to Plaintiff C; and (c) to each of the said money, from June 23, 2015 to June 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D, around 02:19 on June 23, 2015, driven a e-car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) under the influence of alcohol concentration of 0.104% on blood alcohol level on the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) and brought a right-hand back on the back of the transfer distance from the back of the hand-on distance from the back of the hand-on distance to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, while driving the e-car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) at the main stream of 0.104% on a blood alcohol level, and driving it on the front side of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(2) On October 4, 2016, A, who was on board the back seat of the damaged vehicle, died around 19:50 on October 4, 2016 while receiving medical treatment by suffering injuries, such as cage cage ducts and ductal ductal ducts.

(3) While the instant lawsuit was pending, the Plaintiff B and C taken over the legal proceedings as the deceased’s children, following the death of A (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(4) The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Gap's evidence, Eul's evidence or video (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant’s limitation of liability asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability as the deceased did not wear a safety bell at the time of the instant accident. However, the submitted evidence alone cannot be readily concluded that the deceased did not wear a safety bell. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is rejected.

2. Except as otherwise stated below, the scope of liability for damages shall be as follows, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly: