1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 1,000,000 for each of the Plaintiff A, and KRW 50,000 for each of the Plaintiff B and E; and (b) KRW 500,00 for each of the Plaintiff C and D.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) G is the Defendant’s vehicle “Defendant’s vehicle” around 18:50 on December 19, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(i) A driver’s vehicle of Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driving his vehicle, driving his vehicle, driving his oil at the J station located in J Sea I, driving his oil, and driving his oil into the road in the direction of the J station, which is adjacent to the direction of the J station. At this point, the center line of the yellow-ray, which was installed, but was obstructed by the median of the central line, left directly from the right side of the running direction of the Defendant’s vehicle to the left side of the center.

) The left-hand panion part of the accident was shocked, and as a result, the plaintiff A suffered injury, such as scambling, damage, etc. (hereinafter referred to as "the accident in question").

(2) Plaintiff B is the husband of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C, D, and E are children of Plaintiff A.

Plaintiff

E was on board the Plaintiff at the time of the instant accident.

3) The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle (based on recognition). The Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle (based on recognition), the fact that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11, 12

B. According to the fact that the defendant's liability is recognized, since the accident of this case occurred by negligence that the driver of the defendant's vehicle driven in the central line, the defendant, the insurer, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case

C. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A was negligent in not immediately operating the plaintiff vehicle, even though he discovered the defendant vehicle by making the plaintiff A a speed at the private distance intersection.

However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone was over-speeded at the time of the instant accident.

It is insufficient to recognize that there is any negligence in the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be the same as each corresponding item of the attached Table of Calculation of Compensation Amount, and shall be for the convenience of calculation.