1. The defendant shall pay 145,711,445 won to the plaintiff A, 2,00,000 won to the plaintiff B, and 1,00,000 won to the plaintiff D, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) E is a F Vehicle around November 15, 201 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) around 01:36.

) A driving the Plaintiff, while proceeding two lanes from the front side of Dongdaemun-gu Seoul National University at a speed of about 89 km from the speed of 3 lanes to the SP elementary school at the speed of about a speed of about 89 km, and the Plaintiff A was injured by the Plaintiff A, who dried the crosswalk. As a result, the Plaintiff A sustained the injury, such as the mouth of the inner part, the right upper part of the upper part, the upper part of the upper part of the road, the upper part of the road, the upper part of the road, and the bridge, etc. (hereinafter “instant

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D is the type of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3 (if there is a satisfy number, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) No. 6, Eul evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the accident in this case occurred due to the mistake that the E, the driver of the defendant vehicle, did not look at whether the yellow signal exceeds the restricted speed in the crosswalk on-and-off and proceeded without examining whether there is a pedestrian. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

C. As to the determination of the claim on the limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking into account the above, inasmuch as the Plaintiff, at night, was erroneous in crossing the road without viewing the flow of the vehicle in a drinking condition.

However, the plaintiff A crossings the crosswalk, and since the point of the accident in this case is five-lanes among the six-lanes, it does not seem that the plaintiff A was grossly negligent.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, each corresponding item of the annexed table of calculation of damages shall be the same as each corresponding item, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly.