1. The Defendant: (a) from October 16, 2017, to Plaintiff A, KRW 245,354,163; and (b) KRW 255,354,163; and (c) respectively, to Plaintiff B.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) D is a motor vehicle for the E Kaun (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 19:00 on October 16, 2017.

) While driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle to turn to the left at a speed not later than that of the two-lanes in front of the Seo-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government apartment G-dong, the two-lanes of the road in front of the river in front of the river in front of the river in front of the river in front of the river in front of the river in front of the river in front of the road in front of the south-west, H, the mother of the Plaintiff B, and the crosswalk in the apartment complex in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of

2) On October 16, 2017, H died due to the instant accident, such as low blood transfusion shock and severe emulsion damage, etc.

(hereinafter referred to as “H. 3”) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased, who have succeeded to their property, and the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). [The grounds for recognition] of absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence 1 through 6, 11 through 16, and 18’s each statement (including each number, the images of Gap’s evidence 17, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant, as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, has died of the deceased child due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, is liable to compensate the loss suffered by the deceased child and the plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

C. The Defendant asserts that the negligence on the part of the Plaintiffs in determining the Defendant’s liability should be taken into consideration in setting the Defendant’s liability, on the grounds that the Plaintiff B erred by walking along the crosswalk without signal lights at night, and did not properly consider the movement of the vehicle.

However, according to the above evidence, the accident site of this case is a crosswalk in the apartment complex and is scheduled to cross the apartment residents, so the driver is a pedestrian above the crosswalk under the Road Traffic Act.