1. The Defendant: KRW 313,960,825 to Plaintiff A; KRW 3,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and KRW 1,00,000 to Plaintiff C and D, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) E driving a Fsi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) around 02:30 on December 30, 2014, and driving the Fsi (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) along the one-lane of the four-lanes in front of the 55 Seoul Jongno-gu Museum of the Seoul Jongno-gu, Jongno-gu, Seoul, as the front of the 55 Seoul Station Museum, as the front of the 55th parallel intersection.

While the central line was hered and hered, the left-hand part of the G cab of Plaintiff A (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) located in the opposite direction was received in front of the right-hand part of the Defendant-motor vehicle.

(2) The plaintiff A suffered injuries, such as the panchitis, scarke, and chlosion, due to the accident in this case. (3) The plaintiff B is the spouse of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff C and D are children of the plaintiff, and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the vehicle in this case. [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 2, and Eul 2, including numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply).

each entry, the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability on the ground that the Plaintiff Company A was aware that the Defendant’s vehicle was in an abnormal progress by breaking the central line, but did not drive an adequate defense or not wear a safety level.

On the other hand, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone did not take appropriate measures despite being aware of the fact that the Defendant Company A is running in the middle line.

The defendant's above assertion is not acceptable because it is insufficient to see that he did not wear a safety level or that he did not have any other evidence to prove it.

2. The following separate statements are set forth below within the scope of liability for damages.