1. The Defendants jointly do so from December 29, 2018 to KRW 12,695,014 to each of the Plaintiffs, and Defendant C and E’s organization with respect thereto.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The content stated in this part of the facts of recognition is as “the occurrence of liability for damages” in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, Eul 2 and 3 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), video and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, Defendant D is the driver of the instant taxi pursuant to Article 750 of the Civil Act; Defendant C is the user of Defendant D pursuant to Article 756 of the Civil Act; Defendant E is the insurer of the instant taxi; and Defendant E is the insurer of the instant taxi; the Defendants are jointly liable for damages suffered by the Plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

2. Scope of liability for damages

A. In full view of the facts that there is no dispute over the computation of damages, the entry of Gap 5 evidence, and the result of the appraisal commission to F by this court, the Plaintiffs’ number of fixed numbers and outdoor septic tanks jointly owned by each of 1/2 equity ratios were destroyed, and the total value thereof was 36,271,470 won.

B. According to Article 3(1) of the Act on the Liability for Reduction of Damages, in the event that the actual owner does not have gross negligence, a claim for reduction of damages may be filed against the actual owner. In such a case, the court may reduce the amount of damages, taking into account the circumstances under each subparagraph of Article 3(2) of the said Act.

The term "major negligence" as referred to in the above Act refers to a situation in which, without due care to the extent required of a single merchant, it can easily be predicted that the result of the unlawful harmful act can be easily predicted if it is not done (see Supreme Court Decision 92Da21959 delivered on October 27, 192). In this case, the occurrence and expansion of the instant fire was grossly negligent by the defendant.

shall not be deemed to exist.

In addition, the occurrence of the fire in this case and the progress of the fire in this case are somewhat unsatisfyed, and Defendant D, a driver, caused the fire.