The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 347,269,246 as well as to November 2013.

A. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the facts of recognition are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is intended to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

B. According to the facts of recognition as above, the defendant is liable to compensate the damage suffered by the deceased and his bereaved family as a mutual aid business operator of the defendant's vehicle.

C. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant asserts that the driver of the defendant's vehicle at the time of the accident in this case was driving, or neglected to drive the vehicle at front time due to the operation of radio operation with the deceased, and the deceased was not urged to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident, and that the deceased did not wear the safety belt at the time of the accident. Thus, the deceased's negligence should be considered when determining the defendant's liability for damages. Furthermore, the deceased's failure to drive the vehicle at the time of the accident in this case. 2) The defendant's assertion that the defendant's driver did not prove that the driver operated the vehicle at the time of the accident in this case, and that the driver of the vehicle in this case was engaged in operating the vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and that the driver of the vehicle in this case was not aware of the danger of driving the vehicle in this case at the time of the accident at the time of the accident in this case, and that the evidence presented alone is not sufficient to acknowledge the safety belt's danger of driving in this case (see 2505.).