1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 3,00,00 for each of the said KRW 232,54,509, Plaintiff B, C, and D and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. 1) On March 19, 2015, Plaintiff A is a vehicle E (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) proceeding on the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of the sub-section of U.S., Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, U.S., the sub-section of the sub-section

2) The instant accident is called “instant accident” (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as satisfying satisfying satisfying satisfying satisfys, with no open address in the instant accident.

3) Plaintiffs B, C, and D are children of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle. [The fact that there is no dispute over recognition, entries in Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. The defendant is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case unless there are special circumstances according to the above recognition of the liability for damages.

C. The limitation of liability for damages is limited to 70% of the Defendant’s liability in consideration of the occurrence of the instant accident while Plaintiff A was crossing a two-way road without permission.

2. Scope of damages;

(a) 1) The basis for net income (a) the primary matter: the entry in the following table:

AFB) At the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff A was operating the Sejong Deputy Director at the time of the instant accident, under the name of Dong resident, and accordingly, Plaintiff A filed a claim for actual income by asserting that he was able to obtain urban daily wage for three years from the date of the instant accident. However, at the time of the instant accident, Plaintiff A’s age was 65 years and 11 years old. However, there is insufficient reason to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone was in fact operating the Sejong Deputy Director or that Plaintiff A could obtain income even after the instant accident. Accordingly, Plaintiff A’s claim for actual income is without merit.