1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 67,711,662 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 32,744,489 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from January 1, 2016 to each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D is a vehicle E around January 17, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(B) While driving a vehicle, driving a vehicle, driving a vehicle, driving a road in front of the Incheon Strengthening Group at H entrance from the direction of the G community center to the right side of the G community center, the vehicle, set up at the edge of the road to the opposite direction, was shocked with the string of the steel systems installed at the edge of the opposite direction, and shocked the plaintiffs who walk at the edge of the opposite direction (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the pelle of the pelle, the pelle of the pelle on the left and right side, the pelle of the pelle of the pelle, and Plaintiff B suffered bodily injury, such as blood transfusion.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the Defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 17, Eul evidence No. 3 (including all family evidence attached with a serial number, and

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiffs were injured due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant's judgment as to the limitation of liability has been set up at the location of the accident in this case, so the plaintiffs should consider such error in calculating the amount of damages that the defendant should compensate for, since the plaintiffs should have walk to the outside of the Garail, they were erroneous in walking to the inside of the Garail.

On a road that is not divided into a sidewalk and a roadway, pedestrians may pass along the edge of the road or the roadside area (Article 8 of the Road Traffic Act). According to the images of the evidence No. 17-1, No. 17-2, No. 3-1, and No. 2, the report of this case is not installed separately in the location of the accident.