1.Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the judgment of the first instance, including claims extended and reduced in the trial, are as follows:

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as follows. The part of the "payment of insurance money" part of the third judgment of the court of the first instance shall be used as follows, and the same part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of the first instance, except where the "certificate 9" of the second judgment is applied as "certificate 17" under the third part, is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of the first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it

(C) The portion of the insurance proceeds paid shall be the agreed amount or treatment expenses calculated by taking into account the fruits of the winners according to the above insurance contract, the bereaved family members of the deceased E (45% of the negligence ratio) from December 21, 2011 to January 20, 2012, and the F (40% of the negligence ratio) from January 6, 2012 to March 11, 2015, the insurance proceeds of KRW 39,380,750, G (45% of the negligence ratio) were paid to KRW 20,801, KRW 120, KRW 120, KRW 400 from April 8, 2015 to KRW 170, KRW 4650 from January 6, 2012 to KRW 39,380, KRW 460 from April 10, 201, KRW 20, KRW 120, KRW 400, KRW 401, KRW 147.2196,27.147.7

- Each of the above insurance proceeds is the amount corresponding to the amount of damages suffered by the above passengers due to the accident of this case.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendants did not take complementary measures to prevent confusion after changing the form of an intersection, which is a public facility, in performing the instant construction, and did not properly manage the risks caused by construction, such as the entry control facility and the starting-line guidance facility, which are easily visible at night, and did not properly manage them. The defendants' negligence is deemed to have caused the occurrence of the instant accident along with the negligence of violating the safety driving duty of the driver of the insured vehicle. Thus, the defendants jointly exempted from the payment of the plaintiff's insurance money, as the body of responsibility, in response to the plaintiff's claim.