A. On April 17, 2012, D, driving a vehicle for the E-city bus (hereinafter “instant hazard vehicle”) around 11:50, and driving the intersection of the distance of the D-Wedon in Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-do, the intersection of the D-Wed on the side of the terminal company distance, D, when passing the bicycle of the Plaintiff A’s bicycle prior to the intersection where the overtaking is prohibited, was overtaken, and the Plaintiff’s bicycle was inflicted on the right side of the instant A-Wed on the part where the Plaintiff’s bicycle left hand was shocked, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff’s bicycle, such as a light blood transfusion, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A and Plaintiff C, and the Defendant is the person who entered into a mutual aid agreement under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act with respect to the instant Maritime Vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 3, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages caused by the accident of this case, which occurred in violation of safety obligations, such as violation of D's place of prohibition of overtaking.

C. Restrictions on liability does not require the Plaintiff, an adult, to wear safety equipment, such as a safety appearance, under the Road Traffic Act, but negligence in comparative negligence does not constitute a strong negligence that requires a breach of duty, such as the perpetrator’s negligence, but refers to minor attention required in community life according to social norms or the good faith principle, and thus, the victim’s negligence is negligent in exercising due care to prevent the victim’s own disadvantage. In light of the parts and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury, the circumstance where the Plaintiff Company failed to wear safety equipment, which contributed to the occurrence or expansion of the damage, can be recognized as having contributed to the Plaintiff’s failure to wear safety equipment. Accordingly, the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% by deeming that the Plaintiff’s negligence on which the safety gear was not worn,

2. Compensation for damage;