1. The Defendant’s KRW 19,838,631 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 23, 2015 to March 10, 2017, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around April 22, 2015:17:10 on April 22, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) B

2) A bend road located in the Gangwon-do Do Do Do Do Do nam-do Do Do Do (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”).

) A network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) that has been proceeding on the face of the enemy who had been proceeding on the face of the enemy.

2) Driving E Eba (hereinafter “instant Obaba”)

(B) Of the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, the part of the left-hand side was shocked by the front-hand part of the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle, resulting in the Deceased’s death on the spot due to the d

2) The Plaintiff and Nonparty F are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, Eul 1 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness Eul's witness Eul's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the accident of this case occurred by shocking the Defendant’s vehicle in the middle line of the road of this case where the deceased was honded by the driver of the central line of the road of this case, and the Defendant should be exempted from liability on the grounds that there was no negligence on the part of the deceased. 2) According to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, a person operating a vehicle for his own sake is liable to compensate for damages if he killed or injured another person due to its operation, and the driver was not negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the vehicle of this case, and there was an intention or negligence on the part of the victim or a third person other than the driver.