1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 92,139,50, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 55,926,300, and each of the said money, on October 7, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The network E is a Fcar owned under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131% at around 23:11 on October 7, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant”) and under the influence of alcohol level of 0.131%.

) A driver, entering the entrance of the G G Apartment-dong underground parking lot in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and proceeding at a speed of 68 km speed from the entrance of the first floor parking lot to the speed of 68 km per hour, and a parking lot collisions with the wall of the parking lot and was on the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “the network”).

3) The instant accident is deemed to be the case where the instant accident occurred on the same day.

2) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7, 10, 12 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability, however, according to the above evidence and evidence Nos. 10-4 through 10-8, and evidence No. 11, the deceased et al., on the date of the accident, on the day of the accident, boarded with members of the E et al., and was on board the defendant's vehicle who was driven by E again while she was on board and returned to the vehicle of the members who did not drink alcohol. While the deceased is well aware of the fact that she was driven by E while drinking alcohol, he was unable to continuously recommend E residing in the same apartment complex and was on the part of the defendant's vehicle. The deceased's above error was caused by the occurrence of the accident of this case and the expansion of damage. Therefore, the defendant's liability is limited to 85% by taking account of this, since it is limited to the defendant's liability.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that there was negligence on the deceased's failure to wear safety belts.