1. The Defendants: (a) each of the Plaintiffs Company A, KRW 73,128,459; (b) KRW 46,030,757; and (c) KRW 46,030,757; and (d) each of the above amounts.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant C is the driver of the E treatment Track vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and Defendant D is the owner of the Defendant vehicle.

B. On September 21, 2012, at around 03:05, Defendant C driven the Defendant’s vehicle to move back to the opposite direction of the F-Aur-Wing Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) the front part of the Defendant’s driving direction of the vehicle in front of the front line of the vehicle in front of the front line of the vehicle in front of the instant road (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the front part of the F-Aur-Wing Vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the road (hereinafter “the instant accident”). As a result, the vehicle in front of the front line of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the instant accident in front of the left side of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the vehicle in front of the instant accident (hereinafter “the vehicle in front of the instant accident”). As such, the vehicle in front of the road in front of the left side of the vehicle in front of the Plaintiff’s death (hereinafter “the vehicle in front of the road”).

C. The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the plaintiff B is the deceased's children.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 4, Gap evidence 9-2, 3, Eul evidence 1-1, 3 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The plaintiffs' assertion 1) The defendant C neglected his duty to live well in the front left and drive safely, thereby causing the death of the deceased. As such, the defendant C is a tort, the defendant D is the owner and the operator of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant D is liable for damages as the owner and the operator of the defendant vehicle. However, since the negligence of the deceased who failed to take follow-up measures after causing a prior accident was caused by the accident of this case, the defendant's liability ratio on the part of the defendant taking into account the negligence of the deceased exceeds 50%. 2) The defendants' assertion by the defendants is minimal enough time to prevent the subsequent accident.