1. Insurance money to be paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendants in relation to traffic accidents indicated in the attached accident.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around May 7, 2013, the Plaintiff concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle with respect to the Hone Star (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) owned by G and its owner from May 7, 2013 to May 7, 2014.

B. At around 18:00 on October 25, 2013, G: (a) while driving the instant vehicle and driving the instant three-lane road located in Gangnam-si I in the direction of Gangseo-si, G shocked the front part of the A driver who tried to run a left- or left-hand turn turn-on by breaking the center line in the direction of the direction of Gangseo-si.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). A caused the instant accident to receive medical treatment by suffering from injury, such as external cerebral cerebrovascular, and died on April 7, 2015 during the instant lawsuit.

C. A was under the influence of alcohol content of 0.145% at the time of the instant accident.

The time of sunset on the day of the instant accident was 17:34.

The Defendants taken over the instant lawsuit as the inheritor of A (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”).

Each description of Gap's 1 through 8, Eul's 1 through 4 (including paper numbers, but excluding Eul's 1-4 because it was mistakenly prepared) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the facts acknowledged prior to the determination, the accident of this case is deemed to have occurred due to the negligence of the deceased, who was in the course of the operation of the central line under the influence of alcohol.

As to this, the Defendants asserted that, at the time of the instant accident, while the deceased left left and entered the opposite lane in accordance with the rear side of the vehicle and the front side of the vehicle, the vehicle in this case tried to enter the two-lanes to avoid the vehicle parked in the two-lanes, and then the vehicle in this case intending to enter the first lane, the vehicle in this case gets into the right side engine part of the deceased and the bridge of the deceased. Therefore, G is negligent in neglecting the duty of care at the front side.

On the other hand, the party examination of the defendant C, which seems consistent with the defendants' arguments, is conducted.