1. The Defendant: 109,689,827 won, Plaintiff B, and C respectively; and 500,000 won and each of the said money to Plaintiff D.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) The Defendant is an insurer which has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Fluent vehicle quantity owned by E (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) At around 02:45 on November 10, 2012, G, while driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving it at a speed of approximately 120 km in the speed of the city bus terminal located in the Cheongju-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-do, Go, the underground vehicle located in the center of the city bus terminal, which was located in the Cheongju-do, was shocked into the front part of the Defendant and was charged with the Plaintiff, who was on the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the retaining wall, sustained the injury, such as the removal of the upper part of the river for the right side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (3) Plaintiff B and C are parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff D are punished by Plaintiff A.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 through 4, 11, Eul evidence 1, 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 as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. According to the evidence, prior to the limitation of liability, G, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, is between the Plaintiff and the military motive, and can be recognized as having caused the instant accident while holding a meeting with H, who is another passenger, and going to work with the Plaintiff. In light of the various circumstances revealed in the instant argument, such as the purpose of operation of the Defendant vehicle, the relationship between the passenger and the driver, the personal relationship with the driver, and the situation during which the Plaintiff was accompanied by the Defendant’s vehicle, it would be reasonable to adjust the Defendant’s liability to a certain portion of the amount, and thus, it would be reasonable to consider such circumstances in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for.

In addition, there is an error that the Plaintiff did not control G’s continuous driving and reverse driving, and it is reasonable to view that the reduction rate due to such a mistake and reverse riding exceeds 30%, and therefore, the Defendant’s scope of responsibility is limited to the remainder of 70%.

2...