1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff)’s KRW 200,000 for each of the Plaintiff B and C and its related thereto shall be from September 29, 2013 to September 30, 2015.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed to be combined.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s vehicle”) with the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s vehicle”) as an insured vehicle, and the Plaintiff A is the driver of the Oraba (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff 2”).

C. On September 29, 2013, at around 14:35, 2013, E driven the Defendant’s vehicle and proceeded with the Defendant’s front side of the Defendant’s vehicle at the front side of the G pharmacy located in Ansan-si F, one lane from the front side of the G pharmacy street to the front side of the transmission distance, and attempted to make an illegal internship under the left-hand turn signal. However, the Plaintiff’s front side of the instant Defendant vehicle and the front side of the Defendant’s front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which proceeded with the left-hand turn signal.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered from the injury of the Heatitis, etc., and the Plaintiff B and C are the parents of the Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, 8-1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. The parties' assertion 1) The plaintiffs asserted that at the time of the accident in this case, the driver of the defendant vehicle was frighted to her central line in order to carry out illegal U-turns, and that the accident in this case was more serious for the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle. The defendant asserts that the driver's negligence of the defendant vehicle in this case was more severe for the defendant vehicle in this case. The defendant claimed that the plaintiff A's negligence was more severe for the plaintiff's driver in this case as the safety area of the central line where entry is prohibited, since the driver of the defendant vehicle in this case could not be predicted. 2) The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff A, as the driver in this case, had a duty to drive the three-lane road in this case, as the driver in amba, was in violation of Article 16 (1) and attached Table 9 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act (the plaintiff A was proceeding in the central line safety zone.