1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 90,637,922 to Plaintiff A; (b) KRW 26,842,012 to Plaintiff B; and (c) from January 2, 2015 to each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On January 2, 2015, the person whose name was omitted is D vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”) around 16:30 on January 2, 2015.

ii)A motor vehicle F for E Driving (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) driven along a one-lane while driving along a two-lane road at a point 151 km away from the upstream line of the Coastal Expressway, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun.

) In order to avoid a collision with the Defendant’s vehicle, it was rapidly changing the direction to the right side, and caused the shock prevention facilities installed on the right side of the road to shock the shock prevention facilities (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, the wife of the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the instant accident, sustained injury, such as scambling, scambling, scambling, and scambling, etc. The Plaintiff, the wife of the Plaintiff, who was accompanied by the Plaintiff’s wife, was the victim of the injury caused by the scambal abandonment.

3) The Defendant is the insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the Defendant’s vehicle. (4) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff received the automobile comprehensive insurance contract from G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), which is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, totaling KRW 39,000,000 (Supplementary Insurance Money, KRW 9,000,000, KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 28,800,000 (Supplementary Insurance Money, KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 18,800,000,000, respectively).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap 2 through 5, 9, 15 (including all family cards attached with a serial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances, since the plaintiffs were injured due to the operation of the defendant vehicle.

C. However, while limiting liability, E, the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, had been negligent in neglecting the duty of care when driving on the expressway, the Plaintiffs were negligent.