1. Of the instant lawsuits, the court shall dismiss the suit for KRW 4,060,350.

2. The Defendant: 108,248,518 won to Plaintiff A.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 15:30 on May 31, 2012, E is a F-rolling stock (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant-rolling stock”) at the hotel of the Jin Chang-gun, Jin Chang-gun, Jin Chang-gun, Jent-gun, Sentishington, to the face of a monthly death.

) On the other hand, the two-lanes of the national road No. 200 meters from the two-lanes of the road was proceeding. On the right side of the road, there was Plaintiff A’s garden on the side, and at the time, Plaintiff A was working for the said garden with a road, etc. At the time, Plaintiff A was working for the said garden. Although there was a sudden slope of the above road, E was negligent in performing the duty of care to safely proceed along the road, despite having been on the duty of care to safely proceed along the two-lanes of the road, E was in excess of the outer side of the road, and the part of Plaintiff A’s amam was in front of Defendant A’s vehicle. The Plaintiff was suffering from injury, such as Dan Alley, stroke, stroke, stroke, stroke damage, stroke, and stroke, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are children of Plaintiff A.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

C. As to the limitation of liability, the Defendant asserts that, at the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A was seated on the side despite the fact that the Plaintiff had to work far away from the side at the time of the instant accident, and that the Defendant A received the Plaintiff A, who was seated on the side because it is not possible to find a vehicle that was going on the opposite side and cannot proceed urgently to the right side, and that the Plaintiff’s negligence should be considered more than 50%.