1. The Defendant: (a) on July 16, 2015, the Plaintiff 19,498,785 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively; and (b) on each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D (hereinafter “the deceased”).

Around 07:00 on July 16, 2015, a vehicle driving an E 125C occ c., with a distance of 85 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g g

) A driver’s vehicle was waiting in the second place in order to make a U-turn in the middle of the three-lanes of the said three-lanes. However, the first waiting vehicle could have anticipated that there was a vehicle driven normally on the road in compliance with the said stop. As such, there was a duty of care to make a U-turn by making a good look at the opposite road condition. Nevertheless, the F was due to the negligence of the Defendant’s accident, which caused the death of the Plaintiff by blood transfusion (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1-3, 6, 7 evidence, Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.

C. The limitation of liability: (a) the instant accident occurred due to the deceased’s violation of signal, and thus, it is reasonable for the deceased to bear most of its responsibility; (b) so, the Defendant calculated the amount of damages to be compensated.