The defendant's 283,540,959 won to the plaintiff A, 278,540,959 won to the plaintiff B, and 4,60,000 won to the plaintiff C and each of them.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is a F-wing Pool vehicle around 17:30 on July 18, 2017 (hereinafter referred to as “fwing vehicle”).

(2) At the time, I would normally operate JOba (hereinafter “victim”) on the vehicle adjacent to that time, while driving the vehicle, while driving the vehicle along the main line of “H” (hereinafter “the instant accident”) and driving the vehicle along the main line to the right side of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). At the same time, E was faced with the center line and driving the vehicle to the right side of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “the instant accident”). However, there was an accident in which E was caused by the rear part of the right side of the damaged vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

3) After the instant accident, I sent back to the hospital, but died at around 19:50 on the same day as the tension, tension, dyebral bones, etc. . 4) Plaintiff A and B are the parents of the deceased I, Plaintiff C is the type of the deceased I, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract for vehicles E and Maritime Affairs.

[Ground of recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including the number of branch offices; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the fact inquiry into K Hospital by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of E, which is the driver of a sea-going vehicle, so the defendant is the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, and is liable for compensating the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident

C. The Defendant’s judgment on the limitation of liability is reasonable inasmuch as the damaged vehicle is proceeding with a road bending to the right side from the adjacent part of the damaged vehicle at the time of the instant accident, E, a driver of the damaged vehicle, could not easily find the damaged vehicle due to a visual disorder. Since the network I’s unreasonable progress, speed, etc. was caused by the instant accident, the Defendant’s responsibility is reasonable.