A. On April 29, 2013, G: (a) around 09:29:29 on April 29, 2013, G is deemed Defendant Industrial Traffic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Company”).

(B) the H bus owned by the State (hereinafter referred to as the “ASS”) is the vehicle of the State in this case.

) A L taxi operated by K driver who is left left to the left according to the new subparagraph (hereinafter referred to as “victim of the instant vehicle”) while driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle to the left at the left-hand level from the seat of the Lebrid hotel to the light-distance distance, while driving his/her vehicle to the left-hand level in the vicinity of the Jban-gu in the Jban-gu I, Daejeon, along five lanes.

2) The left-hand side portion of the instant wing vehicle is shocked by the front part of the instant wing vehicle, and due to this, K, the driver of the instant wing vehicle, who is the driver of the instant wing vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

3) The accident caused the death of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the rest of the Plaintiffs are the deceased’s children.

The Korean Federation of Bus Transport Business Associations (hereinafter referred to as the "Association") is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement on the instant Livers vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 3, 4 evidence, Eul 2-1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition as the basis of liability, the Defendant Company is the operator of the instant sea vehicle, and the Defendant Association is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the instant sea vehicle.

C. As to the Defendants’ assertion of limitation on liability, the Defendants did not wear the safety belt, and the mistake of wearing the safety belt as above contributed to the expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, so the Defendants’ liability should be limited in consideration of these circumstances. However, the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants’ liability should be limited, as stated in the evidence Nos. 2-1 through 4, and this Court.