1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 167,131,206 for each of the Plaintiffs and 5% per annum from September 3, 2016 to February 7, 2018; and (b) for each of the Plaintiffs.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On September 3, 2016, at around 23:55, C driven D C C C C’s vehicle with blood alcohol concentration of 0.135% (hereinafter referred to as “A’s sea-water vehicle”) and driven the front road of the Rose of Sharon apartment, which is located in 641 in accordance with the Gu’s border water during the Ansan-si period, along with the new engineer distance from the area of the stable distance to the area of the five-lane.

C due to negligence, etc., while under the influence of alcohol at the time, neglecting the duty of front-time care, C was crossing E with a bicycle on a pedestrian stop signal, and received the front part of the vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as "the accident of this case". The accident of this case died on September 4, 2016, E as brain mathy.

(hereinafter “E”. Meanwhile, on April 7, 2017, C, who is an accident driver, was sentenced to imprisonment with prison labor for one year and two years of suspended execution due to a violation of the Act on the Aggravated Punishment, etc. of Specific Crimes (Death, etc. Resulting from Dangerous Driving).

(Court) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a household-going vehicle.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members due to the accident of this case, as the insurer of the household.

C. The deceased, as set forth in the line of 10 lanes, was found to be erroneous in crossing the crosswalk without a safety marbling, in violation of pedestrian stop signals, and such errors were deemed to have a substantial cause for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

However, in full view of all the circumstances, such as the fact that C caused the instant accident on the crosswalk while drunk driving in the condition of 0.135% alcohol concentration, and C appears to have been under speed exceeding the restricted speed at the time, the deceased’s negligence shall be deemed 40% and the Defendant’s responsibility shall be limited to 60%.

recognized.