1. The Defendant: (a) on September 20, 2016, the Plaintiff 1,054,77,687 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively; and (b) on each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) D is an EM7 passenger vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around September 20, 2016, around 12:10, 2016.

2) While driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle into the intersection with the intersection in front of the Mapo Library located in the front of the 32-lane in the front of the office library located in the direction of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the city of the Gu of the Gpoter 2 (hereinafter

2) The front part of the Defendant’s vehicle’s front part was the top part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A, who was on board the Chief of the Plaintiff’s vehicle due to the instant accident, sustained an injury, such as spawn, etc. due to damage to light water.

3) Plaintiff B and C are the children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant with respect to the Defendant vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 11 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply).

- The purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the amount of compensation should be reduced on the ground of the following reasons, as the Plaintiff did not wear the safety belt, and the Plaintiff was accompanied by the instant accident, after being accompanied by the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the amount of compensation should be reduced.

However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone as to the fact that the plaintiff A did not wear the safety belt is insufficient to recognize it. The evidence submitted by the defendant and the above circumstance alleged by the defendant is difficult to view that there is a circumstance to limit the defendant's liability due to the accident of this case due to the plaintiff A's hono.