1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant 18,64,936 won, Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G respectively.

At around 14:05 on June 1, 2018, J (hereinafter referred to as “J-related vehicle”) driven a motor vehicle and proceeded along a two-lane road in front of the wind prone distance from the north-west side of the Yyang-gun to the one-lane side of the Ganyang-Eup bank, in order to find out the bicycle of the network K (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) going ahead to the one-lane line from the right side line of the proceeding direction, while I discovered the two-lane road in front of the wind direction, she received the part from the upper right side of the said motor vehicle to the upper side of the vehicle, and caused the death of the deceased, such as double frame, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The deceased’s heir is the Plaintiff B, C, D, E, F, and G, the wife, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to a household vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] According to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers for which a branch number exists; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 8 video and the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and is liable for compensation for damages suffered by the deceased and the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case.

On the other hand, according to the above evidence, if the deceased is driving a bicycle to the right side while changing it into one lane, he/she shall give a hand signal, and neglect his/her duty of care to safely change the course of the vehicle in the rear side by informing the vehicle in the rear side of the change of course, and taking into account the situation of the vehicle in the rear side, and failing to wear a safety cap. The deceased's above mistake can be recognized as a cause for the occurrence of the accident of this case or the expansion of damage. Therefore, the scope of the defendant's liability is limited in consideration of this, but considering all the circumstances shown in the argument of this case, the deceased shall be considered.