1. The Defendant’s KRW 61,591,883 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 12, 2015 to October 28, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 17:05 on March 12, 2015, B: (a) C Freight Truck (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”); and (b) “Defendant Vehicle”

(i)a network D (hereinafter referred to as “the network”, referred to as “the network”) to cross the crosswalk installed therein from the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle to the left in accordance with green on-and-off pedestrian signal, etc., by failing to properly perform the duty of care to see the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the right and the duty of care to accurately operate the steering and the system.

2) The Defendant’s vehicle was charged with the Defendant’s vehicle and caused the death (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) On June 24, 2015, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the Cheongju District Court Decision 2015Ddan30689, which held that the Plaintiff’s paternity was established between the deceased and his husband E in the case of confirmation of existence of paternity, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and is the deceased’s children registered as the deceased’s children in the family relations register, and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a car mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 13 (including branch numbers in case where there are branch numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for damages suffered by the plaintiff, who is a child of the deceased and the deceased, due to the accident in this case.

C. Whether to limit liability or not, in this case where the Defendant’s vehicle unilaterally conflicted with the Deceased who was crossing in accordance with pedestrian green destroyed signal, etc., it cannot be deemed that the Deceased is responsible for the occurrence of the accident, and there is no reason to limit the Defendant’s liability.

2. In addition to the matters stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it is identical to each corresponding item of the annexed Schedule of Calculation of Compensation, and the period for the convenience of calculation shall, in principle, be calculated on a monthly basis, but the last month.