1. As to Plaintiff A’s KRW 125,850,442, Plaintiff B’s KRW 80,900,294, and each of the said money from June 27, 2014.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. On June 26, 2014, around 10:25, C driving a D low-speed car (hereinafter “instant car”) and received the “F crossing the said road to the right side on the left side of the front side of the said apartment, which was driving on the front side of the said apartment, from the front side of the said apartment, while driving a one lane in front of, and in front of, the Young-gu E apartment 811 (hereinafter “instant car”).

(hereinafter referred to as “instant traffic accident”) B.

On July 8, 2014, the Deceased died ultimately due to the instant traffic accident.

C. The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiff A, the husband of the deceased, and the Plaintiff B, the husband of the deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for the instant passenger car.

[Ground of recognition] Each description or image of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8 through 22 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the fact of recognition as above, the traffic accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the vehicle in this case who neglected the duty to prevent the occurrence of the damage liability, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the traffic accident in this case as the insurer.

B. The defendant asserts that the traffic accident of this case occurred while the deceased was crossinged in the vicinity of the crosswalk, and thus the deceased's negligence is at least 40%. Accordingly, the plaintiffs asserted that the traffic accident of this case occurred as the location where the traffic accident of this case occurred is a road in the apartment complex, and that the traffic accident of this case cannot be deemed an unauthorized crossing, and that the driver of the vehicle of this case was installed, and that the traffic accident of this case was caused by the former negligence of the driver of the vehicle of this case, and that there was no negligence on the deceased. 2) The purport of the whole arguments and arguments is as follows: Gap's judgment Nos. 1, 9 through 13, 15 through 18, 20, Nos. 1 and 3, and Eul's evidence Nos.