1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 40,243,472, and each of the said money to Plaintiff B, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively, on September 4, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The F is under the influence of alcohol around 20:15 on September 4, 2017, the Gone Star-Yelel 12coop van (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) with the alcohol content of 0.210%.

ii) A six national highway in the Gyeonggi-gu Scyeong-si Gyeongcheon-si Gyeongcheon-si Gyeongcheon-do is a two-lane road in which the central division cost is installed. As such, due to the negligence of driving reversely in accordance with one-lane under the influence of alcohol and the negligence of driving reversely in accordance with the said one-lane, Hongcheon-gu, Hongcheon-si Gyeong-gu, Hongcheon-do Hack-do Hack (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff-do Hack”).

) The front part of the Defendant’s vehicle was charged with the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The instant accident died due to the pulmonary coordinate, blood ples, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “H. 3”) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff B, C, and D as the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [The grounds for recognition] The Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle. In the absence of dispute, each entry (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) in Gap’s 1, 2, 3, 5, and 9 through 15.

- The purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above findings of recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the Defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances.

C. The defendant asserts that if the deceased fulfilled his duty of care in front of the time of the accident, the accident of this case could have been prevented by finding in advance the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the accident, and the deceased was negligent in failing to wear the safety level, and that the deceased’s negligence should be taken into account in determining the Defendant’s responsibility.

However, the deceased shall not wear a safety bell.