A. The facts of recognition 1) B are C rocketing cab around 16:55 on July 5, 2010 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) By driving his vehicle, the left-hand, in violation of the signal from the remote distance room to the air-conditioning station located in the Heung-gu Suwon-dong, Young-gu, Sinju to the left-hand, the front-hand part of the D Bus left-hander on the right-hand side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the back seat of the Defendant vehicle, suffered injury, such as the so-called pelle to the right string of the instant accident, the left-hand satum satum, the satum satum satis, the catum satum satis, the catum satum satis

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity of the Defendant’s vehicle. C. limitation 1) In light of the circumstance of the instant accident and the Plaintiff’s injury parts and degree, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and such negligence of the Plaintiff was the cause of the expansion of damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s

2. In the event that the damage was caused or expanded by competition between the harmful act of the victim and the harmful act of the victim, even though the factors of the victim are irrelevant to the causes of the victim, such as the risk of physical personality or disease, if compensating the perpetrator for the whole damage in light of the form and degree of the disease in question is contrary to the principle of fairness, the court shall apply the principle of comparative negligence to determine the amount of compensation and contribute to the occurrence or expansion of the damage.