1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 104,746,021 to Plaintiff A; and (b) KRW 102,946,021 to Plaintiff B; and (c) to each of them, from August 24, 2013 to August 25, 2015.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 19:39 on August 24, 2013, D driven a E-ro vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and pushed ahead of the passenger vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) with the front portion of the Defendant vehicle, the front portion of the G oil station in front of the G oil station located in the west-gun in the west-gun of the west-gun of the west-west-west (hereinafter referred to as “instant intersection”). Around 19:39, D, in violation of the suspension signal that was changed at the time, D turned down the instant intersection from the north-west of the west-west line to the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the instant accident, his wife who was on board the deceased H and the Plaintiff’s chief lighting of the Plaintiff’s vehicle died of his wife as a part of the cardiopulmonary function.

C. The Plaintiffs were the heirs of the deceased and the deceased J, and the Plaintiff was the insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the Defendant’s vehicle. On June 26, 2015, the Plaintiffs completed the registration of the change of the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries and videos of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7 (including virtual numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The plaintiffs asserted that the defendant vehicle was holding the intersection of this case in violation of the signal, and the plaintiff vehicle, while making a left-hand turn pursuant to the new code, has a conflict with the defendant vehicle in the middle of the central separation string to avoid this, they claim that the accident of this case occurred entirely due to the negligence of D, which is the driver of the defendant vehicle.

As to this, although the defendant's vehicle violated the signal, the defendant's violation of the signal of the defendant's vehicle cannot be the direct cause of the accident of this case as long as other vehicles have already passed it before entering the intersection of this case and normally enter the lane of this case.