A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D cross-city bus around 09:20 on December 13, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving the Plaintiff and driving his vehicle, while proceeding in the direct straight line of the 1506 private-distance intersection, the part of the Plaintiff’s front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was directly in the direction of the movement of the Madern, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was directly in the direction of the movement of the Madern-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong 1506.

2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury, such as the Plaintiff’s blood transfusion from a external organ with no two open address, the pelle of an open flab, the pelle flabing of a flab with no water level, the anti-flabing of the left side, the flabing of the left side, the flabing of the left-hand side, the upper-hand side of the left-hand side, the upper-hand side flabing of the right-hand side, the upper-hand side opening of the flab of the upper-hand side, the upper-hand side of the right-hand side, and the damage to the human body inside the left-hand part.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. The ground for recognition is without any dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, 10, 18, 19, Eul's evidence No. 3

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability, however, should have complied with the signal and speed in the case where the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, has been driving in an intersection with the signal signal, but was negligent in proceeding in the intersection beyond the speed of unreasonable restriction to the yellow signal in the direction of proceeding, and the plaintiff's error contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages. Thus, the plaintiff's negligence should be considered in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the defendant.