1. The Defendant’s each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 16,60,000, as well as 5% per annum from May 16, 2013 to June 27, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 09:20 on May 16, 2013, F driven a G vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on the road near the Dondong Station of Changwon-si, Changwon-si, which led to the death of the deceased, due to a multi-fluence of the two-minutes after about 32 minutes of the accident, by shocking the network H, which had been negligent in driving the G vehicle on the road near the Dondong Station of Changwon-si, Changwon-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) The Plaintiffs are the inheritors of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 4, 9

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the children of the deceased and the deceased, due to the accident of this case.

C. Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the deceased’s negligence, limitation of liability, such as comparative negligence, does not exist.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. The Plaintiffs asserts to the effect that, as they are self-employed farmers who own the rice paddy field and orchard, they should recognize the operating period of at least two years after the accident.

The maximum working age, which serves as the basis for calculating the lost income of a person who mainly engages in an agricultural or agricultural labor, shall be deemed to be until he/she reaches 60 years of age in light of the empirical rule: Provided, That in extenuating circumstances, such as his/her age, occupation, career, and health status, may be determined even when he/she reaches 60 years of age in light of the foregoing empirical rule, in cases where there are extenuating circumstances that he/she may be able to operate beyond 60 years of age in light

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da25852, Dec. 26, 1997). However, as at the time of the accident of this case, the age of the deceased is 72 years old and considerably exceeded the operation period recognized by the empirical rule, the deceased’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6.