1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 175,523,864 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 740,958 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from August 24, 2011 to April 10, 2015 to Plaintiff B.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) as follows: (a) on August 24, 2011, E driven a F vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) at a drinking level of 0.07% of alcohol content around 00:00, and caused the injury of the G bus, which had been driven by a passenger in front of the front part of the said vehicle, due to a mistake in driving the “Sanam-ro near the bus stops of department stores,” from the front side of the front part of the said vehicle due to a mistake in driving the “Sanam-ro near the bus stops of department stores,” from the front part of the said vehicle, and as a result, the Plaintiff A, who was on board the said vehicle of the said E, was suffering from the injury, such as the left part of the lower part of the front part of the said vehicle, such as the blaver laver dul.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (2) Plaintiff B is the mother of Plaintiff A, Plaintiff C and D are the same children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability, however, according to the evidence above, the plaintiff Gap's error in failing to urge safe driving not only after drinking alcohol with E, which is the driver of the defendant vehicle, but also after urging E not to drive a stroke, and the above plaintiff's error caused the occurrence and expansion of damage caused by the accident in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's error is limited to 70% of the defendant's liability by reflecting the plaintiff's error into 30%.

In addition, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff A did not wear a safety belt, but the above assertion is not accepted because there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the plaintiff's injury and disability include multiple sub-competence groups, and a separate consideration is required for this.

2. Liability for damages.