1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 139,901,581, and KRW 3,000,000 to the plaintiff B, and KRW 1,00,000 to the plaintiff C and D respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) E is a F bus around January 8, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

) While driving a vehicle and driving a vehicle to search the front road of the bus stops of the 527 Hayang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Goyang-gu, the head of the vehicle was negligent in performing the duty of care at the front of the front direction, and the Plaintiff A was not discovered to cross the road by pushing a bicycle to the left side from the right side of the Defendant bus driving direction, and the bicycle was shocked to the front part of the Defendant bus, thereby leading the Plaintiff to go beyond the floor. Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as blood transfusion, etc., from the external wound of the Defendant bus (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant bus.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 6, 7 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of defendant bus.

C. The Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred by the former negligence of Plaintiff A, a bicycle driver, and that the Defendant bus driver should be exempted from liability because it is an inevitable accident.

According to the above evidence, the accident in this case occurred while the deceased was shot the floor through a pedestrian stop signal while crossing the crosswalk. However, the defendant's assertion that the defendant bus might be changed to yellow signal between the moment the plaintiff A shots with his bicycle, and that the defendant bus driver E was convicted of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in the criminal case against the accident in this case, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of E, in view of the fact that the defendant bus driver E was convicted of violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents.