1. The Defendant: 14,987,084 won to Plaintiff A; 10,324,723 won to Plaintiff B, C, D, and E; and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The F is the Defendant’s vehicle at around 16:54, March 14, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

) A person driving his/her vehicle, driving his/her vehicle, and driving his/her vehicle along the intersection in front of the I H along the three-lanes from among the four-lanes in the direction of the parallel in the direction of the parallel. Since the said intersection is installed with signal apparatus and the left-hand turn in the direction of the bridge in the direction of the bridge, F is concerned with whether there is a vehicle that has no protective left-hand turn in the direction of the bridge in the direction of the bridge and due to the left-hand turn in the direction of the Republic of Korea, while neglecting his/her duty of care to comply with the restricted speed according to the traffic signal, and enter the intersection in which the restricted speed exceeds 15km/h/30km/h/h of the yellow signal and thereby making the left-hand turn in the direction of the Korean horse in the direction of the punishment intersection (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff OE

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

(2) Due to the instant accident, J (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”) suffered from injury, such as depression and dyeculosis, etc., and died on July 10, 2016.

3) The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, Plaintiff B, C, D, and E respectively, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle. The fact that there is no ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 14 (including all documentary evidence attached with a serial number), and the purport of

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Defendant, as the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages, unless there are special circumstances, since the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(c) limitation of liability, however, according to the preceding vehicle even though the deceased did not have the vehicle driven on the opposite-way vehicle in making a left-hand turn at the left-hand, it should have been driven well.