1. The Defendant: (a) against the Plaintiff A, KRW 111,206,80, and KRW 2,500,000 and each of these money to the Plaintiff B and C, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The defendant is a D and E vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Korean vehicle")

(2) On May 29, 200, around 13:50 on May 29, 2000, the Plaintiff B and C were the parents of Plaintiff A, and D was driving a sea-going vehicle at the Rap 30-69, Dong 1, Dong 30-30, Dong 1, Dong 30-69, to the entrance of the commercial.

Since there are lots of apartment shops, which are the parking lots, and there are many pedestrians who walk in the middle, the driver has a duty of care to properly see the front door and the left door and the left door, and to prevent the accident by accurately manipulating the steering direction and the brake system.

Nevertheless, D neglected to proceed with it and found late between the vehicles parked on the right side of the proceeding direction, and led to the left side of the plaintiff A with the wheels of the vehicle's left side.

(3) With respect to the instant traffic accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the structural frame of security frame opening, the visvise part, the visvise part and the visvise part and the visvise part of the annual installments, and the structural room and pressure visvise part of the visvise part and the visvise part of the visvise part of the visvise part. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including visvis number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above facts of the judgment, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of D who driven a damaged vehicle, and the defendant is obligated to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs according to the comprehensive automobile insurance contract concluded with D.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the instant accident place is not only a person who gains access to an apartment commercial building but also a place where vehicle traffic is frequent; (b) thus, the Plaintiff A should have exercised due care by properly examining the surrounding left and right of the vehicle; and (c) the Plaintiff B and C, who is their parents, had the duty to protect and supervise the Plaintiff A to inform the Plaintiff.