1. The Defendant’s KRW 148,646,80 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from February 3, 2016 to November 9, 2018.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) C is a personal taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 14:25 February 3, 2016, around February 3, 2016.

) During the course of driving the vehicle in the direction of Fdong in the apartment complex in Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the vehicle was fluorily fluor, and the bicycle fluor in the apartment complex was fluored, and the vehicle was fluored by fluoring the bicycle fluor in the back seat of the above taxi, and was on the back seat of the above taxi, thereby causing injury to the Plaintiff, who was on the back seat of the above taxi, to the right side fluor, such as the mouth fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, the fluoring fluor, the upper right fluor, the upper right fluor, and the blood fluoring, etc. (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-3, 7 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the record on limitation of liability, the Plaintiff, who was diagnosed at Grade 4 on the brain of the Defendant’s vehicle, was on board alone on the back seat of the Defendant’s vehicle. In light of the background of the instant accident, including that the Plaintiff, at the time of the instant accident, was faced with the head due to protruding the front seat of the said vehicle, and the injury part and degree of the Plaintiff’s injury, etc., the Plaintiff appears not to have worn the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and the Plaintiff’s negligence was caused by the expansion of damage due to the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff’s fault ratio of the Plaintiff

Therefore, the defendant's liability ratio is limited to 95% of total amount of damages.

2. The scope of the liability shall be below.