1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Defendant: 47,932,886 won and 32,391.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) D is a MF3 car covered by the Defendant’s Comprehensive Automobile Insurance on December 1, 201 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around December 22 and 25, 201.

) while driving a vehicle and driving the F cafeteria in front of the F cafeteria E in the direction of the Dong-ro, the Plaintiff’s bridge crossing the crosswalk to the right-hand side from the left-hand side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, which led the Plaintiff A to fall off from the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and fall off on the floor (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff A suffered injury due to the instant accident, such as brain dead, franchising of franchisium, franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium, f

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1, 2 evidence (including a branch number if a branch number is included; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 2 evidence, the result of the first instance court's entrustment of physical appraisal to G hospital heads, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of the judgment, since the accident of this case occurred in violation of D's duty of pre-determination, the defendant, the insurer of the defendant vehicle, is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs.

C. The defendant's liability limitation 1) The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the plaintiff A's failure to cross the road at night, so the plaintiff A's negligence is at least 50%. However, the accident of this case is above the crosswalk, according to Article 27 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, when a pedestrian is passing along the crosswalk, the driver must temporarily stop in front of the crosswalk (the stop line at the place where the stop line is installed) so as not to obstruct or endanger the passage of the pedestrian, and D violates Article 3 (1) and the proviso to Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.