1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 99,723,652 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 97,223,652 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff C; and (d) each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) D is a cab around 01:57 on August 22, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). D is a cab.

) A driver’s driving of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, along the fourth-lane road in front of G dental clinic in Jongno-gu, led to a speed of about 76 km in speed from the 3rd side of the bank to the 3rd side of the road in the direction of the ero 2: (a) the ero 3rd side of the road, while neglecting the duty of care to drive safely by complying with the speed limit, and by neglecting the duty of care to drive safely by checking the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right, and (b) as a negligence, D, based on the road adjacent to the front side of the road in the direction, started on the right side of the road in the direction of the road, immediately after the collision, was immediately discovered, operated to avoid the collision, but failed to avoid the collision, and shocked H with the front part of the Defendant

A) Accordingly, H died on the same day (hereinafter “H”)

2) The Plaintiff A and B are the parents of the Deceased, and the Plaintiff C is the decedent of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the mutual aid contractor who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] A-4, 6-8 Evidence, 1, 2, 6 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Deceased, at night, was in a situation where the crossing could be completed at the time of changing to a pedestrian signal when coming from the eight-lane main road from which the passage of the vehicle is frequent. However, even though the vehicle is being changed to a vehicle driving signal, the Deceased was crossinged to a very slow side of the crosswalk until about 19 seconds passed, and the instant accident was caused.

The deceased’s negligence was a considerable cause for the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, and thus the deceased’s negligence.