1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 524,466,462 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them from January 6, 2015 to August 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D car at around 18:14, January 6, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) The driver’s license of the Plaintiff A, who was driving a crosswalk, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the instant accident along the instant two-lane distance from the Guluri Island to the outer east-do. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered from an injury, such as an external blood transfusion, etc. in the two traumas.

3) Plaintiff B is the Plaintiff’s child, and the Defendant is the insurer that entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and 9 (including paper numbers, the purport of the entire 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 defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability in consideration of the fact that the Plaintiff neglected to cross the vehicle at the crosswalk in order to ensure the safe crossing of the vehicle at the crosswalk.

그러나 앞서 살핀 증거에 의하면, 원고 A는 횡단보도를 건너다가 중앙선을 넘어서면서 1차로를 따라 진행하던 차량이 멈추는 것을 확인한 후 횡단보도를 계속 건넜고, 당시 2차로로 진행하던 피고 차량은 횡단보도로부터 상당한 거리에 위치하여 있었던 사실이 인정되고, 그밖에 원고 A가 횡단보도를 건너면서 주변 상황 등 안전 여부를 잘 살피지 아니한 채 횡단하였다는 점을 인정할 아무런 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 받아들이지 아니한다.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be the same as each corresponding item of the annexed Table 1 for calculation of damages, and the period for calculation convenience shall be monthly.