A. Fact-finding 1) D is the E bus on the road located in Gposi-ro 300 on September 24, 2017 around 22:36, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) During the driving of the vehicle, the driver neglected the duty of Jeonju City and caused the F crossing the said road to shock the said road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The F died due to the instant accident on the same day. The F died due to the injury to the injury to the reputation on the same day.

(B) According to the above recognition facts, as the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle died, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid project operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

2) As to this, the defendant asserts that the accident in this case occurred without the permission of the deceased, and there is no error against the driver of the defendant's vehicle who had done normally under the new name, and thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability. Since there are commercial buildings, apartment houses, bus stops around the site of the accident in this case, and the crosswalk guidance signs are placed on the surface, the driver is required to pay more attention to the pedestrian's existence or absence, and the driver's view at the time of the accident in this case due to street lamps, etc., the driver of the defendant's vehicle was secured at the time of the accident in this case. Considering these circumstances, it appears that the driver of the vehicle in this case could have avoided the accident in this case or reduced damage if the driver of the vehicle in this case had driven safely while driving the vehicle safely with due care, and therefore the defendant's above assertion is not accepted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da64794, Mar. 26, 2004; 2013Da393193.

limit of liability.