1. The defendant's KRW 61,788,906, and KRW 4,00,000 for each of the plaintiffs Eul and C, respectively, and KRW 1,00,000 for plaintiffs D and E.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) F is the G vehicle around 16:20 on April 19, 2002 (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

A) A driver had driven the Plaintiff and proceeded at a speed of about 50 km from the front-dong elementary school located in the front-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, to a speed of about 50 km. However, F failed to discover Plaintiff A who walked the crosswalk to the right side from the left side of the road driving direction of the instant vehicle due to his negligence in performing the duty of full-time care, even though yellow light light signal, etc. was operated at the above point and the crosswalk was installed, and therefore, Plaintiff A was shocked on the left side of the instant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile class joint insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle, and the Plaintiff B, C, D, and E are the father, mother, largest child, and smallest child of the Plaintiff A, respectively.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the vehicle of this case.

C. The defendant asserts that the defendant's liability should be limited to 70% since the plaintiff A, the plaintiff B, and C, who are their parents, are partly responsible for the occurrence of the accident or the expansion of damage of this case.

However, the fact that the point where the instant accident occurred is on-and-off warning crosswalks such as signal lights is the same as recognized earlier, and when pedestrians are passing along the crosswalks, drivers of all vehicles shall temporarily stop in front of the crosswalks so as not to obstruct or endanger pedestrians (see Article 24 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 6403, Jul. 30, 2001). Thus, the instant accident is merely due to the negligence of the driver of the instant vehicle, and it is difficult to view that the negligence of the Plaintiff is concurrent.

Therefore, the defendant.