1. The Defendant: 31,219,796 won, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively; 15,146,530 won, Plaintiff E, and F respectively; and 6,073,265 won, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) G around May 14, 2016, G is a so-called bicycle road near Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as “bicycle-only road” as provided in the Road Traffic Act, etc.) around 21:25, 2016.

In this case, G was driving on the side of the Government of the Republic of Korea in Seoul. Although it was negligent in failing to turn on the bicycle headlight and talking with her friend by using the bicycle headlight, by failing to discover any He crossinging the road to the left side from the right side of the bicycle riding direction by failing to find out any H crossinging the road to the left side of the bicycle riding direction by failing to turn on the bicycle headlight (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) Plaintiff A is the spouse of H (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), and Plaintiff B, C, D, and I are the children of the deceased.

I had already died before the deceased's death after divorce in 2006 and had the plaintiff E and F as his child.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a contract for liability for daily life with G’s parents (based on recognition). The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a contract for liability for daily life with G’s parents (which includes the number of pages).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

each entry or video, the whole purport of the pleading;

B. In accordance with the recognition and limitation of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, who are the inheritors of the deceased and the deceased, for damages arising from the instant accident.

However, according to the above grounds for recognition, although the deceased should have been able to promote his safety by carefully examining whether there is a bicycle travelling along the bicycle road at night, it can be recognized that he neglected to do so, and that he was 89 years old at the time of the accident. Considering this point, it is unfair to have the defendant assume all responsibilities due to the death of the deceased, and such circumstances are considered.