1. The Defendant: (a) against Plaintiff A, KRW 2,394,124, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively; and (b) against each said money, KRW 1,66,66,66, and each of the said money on February 25, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is the F Cargo Vehicles owned by the Regular Trucking Business Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”) around 06:05 on February 25, 2014.

) A driver of the Hapo-gu Hapo-gu Hapo-gu Hapo-gu Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-ried by the vehicle progress signal at a speed of about 65 kilometers per hour at a speed of about 65 kilometers per hour when he violated the speed of 40 kilometers per hour from the first lane of the Hapo-do Hado-do-do-do-ro at the Hapo-do-si Hapo-si Hapo-si Hapo-si at the speed of the Hapo-si Hapo-do-si Hapo-si Hapo-si at the speed of the two-lane Hapo-do-do-si Hapo-si Hapo-do-si Hapo-do-si Hapo-si. However, the above Hadi caused the death of I (hereinafter referred to as the instant accident").

2) Plaintiff A is identified by the deceased I (hereinafter “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B, C, and D are children of the deceased.

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, 7 (if there are serial numbers, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 1 and 2, the fact inquiry results with respect to the Pool Police Station, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the arguments

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724 (2) of the Commercial Act, unless there are special circumstances, as the mutual aid business operator of defendant

C. The summary of the Defendant’s argument E as to the limitation of exemption and liability was entered the intersection according to the vehicle progress signal at the time of the instant accident.

For this reason, even if the snow E violated speed and operated the defendant's vehicle overspeed, it violates the signal crossing.