1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 41,623,248, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively, KRW 23,748,832 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) E is a Fump truck around 05:30 on March 24, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A person driving the Olympic Games, driving the Olympic Games in the direction of a brigade-2 in the Seoul Bridge, and stopping on the fourth two-lane between the four-lanes as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs due to an accident, and did not install a rear safety mark as determined by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs. Accordingly, the H Poter vehicle of G Driving, which was driven in the same lane on the same lane, led the Defendant to see the part of the front part of the vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) On April 2, 2015, G died due to the instant accident.

(3) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle (based on recognition). [In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6-11, 1, 2, 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers, and the purport of the entire pleadings)

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle and is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved families.

C. In full view of the fact that the driver of the Defendant vehicle subject to the limitation of liability did not install safety signs in accordance with the criteria set by the Ordinance of the Ministry of Government Administration and Home Affairs, but did not use emergency lights and other works at night at the time of the instant accident, but turned on street lights on the street, etc. at the time of the instant accident, and the location of the instant accident was straight line and did not interfere with the view to the view of the fact that the vehicle, which was driven prior to the Deceased for about four minutes, parked on the part of the Defendant vehicle, had been negligent in neglecting the duty of front-time care and contributed significantly to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damage.

Therefore, in consideration of the various circumstances shown in the pleading, the deceased's negligence ratio is 60%, and the defendant's responsibility is the defendant.