1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 21,828,512 for each of the KRW 21,828,512 against the Plaintiff A and each of them on September 2, 2012.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (i) around 11:08 on September 2, 2012, E: (a) driven a F Hegel’s car, and driven an intersection without the He’s front signal, etc. in the petitioner group G (hereinafter “instant intersection”) from the Chang Elementary School to the Hascamb, E caused an accident (hereinafter “instant accident”); (b) caused the instant accident to be caused by the injury, such as the two frameworks, etc., that occurred in the instant accident.

Shed Plaintiff A is the spouse of I, and Plaintiff B, C, and D are the children of I.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the motor vehicles of Hegel with E.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, 10, 11, 14, 17 (including each number), and the whole purport of oral argument.

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, E neglected the duty of Jeonju City and caused the instant accident to occur due to negligence of driving the said car, and thus, the Defendant, the insurer of the said comprehensive insurance contract, is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident.

C. The above recognition of the limitation of liability and the following circumstances revealed in the argument of this case, namely, the crossing of this case did not take traffic control, and the Road Traffic Act grants priority to passage to the vehicle that entered the intersection on the premise that the crossing does not take traffic control (see Article 26(1) of the Road Traffic Act). In this case, the entry of the vessel should clearly be made, and the entry of the vessel is not different from the simultaneous entry, and the entry distance is whether the temporary suspension or the implementation of the duty of traffic is and speed.