A. On January 31, 2015, E means F-si (hereinafter “Defendant-Vehicle”) around 21:12 on January 31, 2015.

i)A collision with G vehicles directly engaged in the air traffic signal from the area of the Mamainatoa Hospital to the area of the Dongaea apartment house at the lower 115-1 (hereinafter referred to as “mine”) in front of the Sinpo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-dong Hapo-ro

) The accident caused the death of the Plaintiff due to the cage cage cage, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle.

3) The Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the Plaintiff B, C, and D are the deceased’s children (based on recognition). [The grounds for recognition] does not dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and Eul’s evidence No. 1 (including paper numbers, the purport of the entire pleadings)

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. According to the description of No. 2 and the purport of the entire argument as to limitation of liability, it can be recognized that the deceased did not fasten the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and the father’s negligence, who did not fasten the safety belt, contributed to the expansion of damage.

Even if the wearing of a safety bell is not enforced by law, it is deemed that the wearing of a safety bell would have been necessary for his own safety in the event of an unforeseen accident so long as it would have been likely to reduce damage caused by the wearing of the safety bell, the failure to wear the safety bell is a ground for offsetting negligence without deciding whether the place of the accident is within or outside the city (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 87Meu69, Jul. 7, 1987; 2008Da91180, Jul. 9, 2009); and the defendant's liability for damages is 95%.