1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 7 million to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 28,821,044 to Plaintiff B; and (c) each of them, from May 10, 2010 to May 20, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C is a D vehicle around 13:50 on May 10, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) The Plaintiff A’s E-to-land (hereinafter “Plaintiff O-to-land”) driven in the same direction without signal, etc. at the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle when driving the Plaintiff, driving on the side of the Defendant’s vehicle, driving the way at which the Plaintiff A was moving the Plaintiff B to the back seat and driving in the same direction (hereinafter “Plaintiff O-to-land”).

) Without discovering the U.S., the Defendant’s front part of the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked with the back part of the Defendant’s front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the Plaintiff’s injury to the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s upper part of the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle, such as the Plaintiff’s franchisium franchisium franchisium, the franchisium franchisium franchisium, the upper part of the franchisium franchisium franchisium, the upper part of the franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium, the upper part of the franchisium franchisium franchisium franchisium, the upper part of the franchisium franchisium franchisium fat, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) In the instant accident, Plaintiff A was hospitalized for 357 days from May 10, 2010 to March 31, 2012, and 498 days from May 10, 201 to December 12, 201, respectively.

3) The Defendant is an insurer which has entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant vehicle (the fact that there is no dispute over grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the instant accident as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability against the Plaintiff A is recognized by the evidence as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff A, who operated the Plaintiff Otoba, appears to have been negligent in driving a narrow side with a narrow width, while neglecting to do so, and the instant case is deemed to have been committed.