A. 1) At around 10:15 on November 4, 2014, I means J-city bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and “Defendant vehicle”.

(i)A driver’s operating and proceeding Tynam-gun, on the identity of the Sin Chang-gun, with a view to neglecting his/her duty of care to see the front section and to accurately operate the steering and steering gear at the front section of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the network”) by negligence; and at that time, the network K (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

(B) When the injured Party A gets the front part of the Defendant vehicle while on board and driving, the injured Party A received the deceased on April 24, 2016 as the front part of the Defendant vehicle, and caused death on April 24, 2016, and caused the Plaintiff A to suffer injury, such as brain-dead, which requires approximately four weeks of treatment (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The plaintiff A is the deceased's spouse, and the remaining plaintiffs are the deceased's children, and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant's vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's 1 through 9, 18, 28 (including branch numbers in case where there are branch numbers), Eul's evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to the defendant's vehicle is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

C. In this case where the Defendant’s vehicle as to whether to limit liability or not, while proceeding on the road, unilaterally concealed the deceased’s horse behind the deceased, it cannot be deemed that the deceased is responsible for the occurrence of an accident. Therefore, there is no reason to limit the Defendant’s liability for the death of the deceased.

In this regard, the defendant alleged that the deceased violated the duty of career care as prescribed by the Road Traffic Act because he driven a light her toward the road. However, in light of the circumstances of the instant accident recognized by the video of the evidence No. 1, the deceased did not proceed to the right side.