1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall be 75,00,000 won and the plaintiff (appointed party).

1. Basic facts

A. At around 16:20 on August 10, 206, D was driving a road in front of the FF University located in Gwangjin-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, for its own possession (hereinafter referred to as the “instant AW vehicle”) and driving in violation of the vehicle stop signal while driving on the land from the surface of the bank according to the ceiling, D did not discover A, from the right side of the course, a designated person who dried the crosswalk in accordance with the pedestrian signal to the left side of the above AW vehicle, and did not detect A, on the left side of the above AW vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). Accordingly, the said designated person suffered from the above AW vehicle’s impact on the upper side side of the above AW vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “the instant accident”). Accordingly, the said designated person suffered from the injury to the left side of the vehicle, such as the thalle spathrosis, the left-hand slele slelet, the left side slelet-gu rupletletletletlet, the side of the left.

B. The Plaintiff C is the mother of the Appointor A, and the Plaintiff B is the subject of the above Appointor’s punishment, and the Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the owner with respect to the foregoing melting vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable for all damages suffered by the designated parties and the plaintiffs due to the above accidents.

B. Whether to limit liability (1) is limited, even if the Defendant’s Claimant was accompanied by the pedestrian signal of the crosswalk, if there is a vehicle being driven pursuant to the new signals immediately before the replacement, the vehicle passed after the replacement, and was negligent in crossinging the crosswalk while neglecting the duty of care to build the crosswalk, and thus, the Defendant’s amount of liability should be reduced by at least 20% in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, taking this into account.

(2) Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence as seen earlier, pedestrians including the Appointor A at the time of the instant accident.