1. The Defendant: 11,045,395 won, Plaintiff B, C, and D respectively, and 2,681,798 won, Plaintiff F, G, and Plaintiff E.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The J is a vehicle with K urban bus around September 10, 2018 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 19:20 on September 10, 2018

(B) While driving the vehicle and driving the vehicle, the vehicle and driving the vehicle are going straight through the private distance intersection without the front signal signal, the vehicle and driving the vehicle are crossinged from the left side of the road to the crosswalk and intersection, and the vehicle and driving the M, which used the vehicle by the defendant, go beyond the road by shocking the part adjacent to the left side of the vehicle of the defendant, and they were sent to the rear wheels of the vehicle of the defendant (hereinafter referred to as the “

2) On the ground of the instant accident, M was killed in the pelvis and the pelvis.

(3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle. 4) The Defendant is the deceased’s children, and the Plaintiff’s E, F, G, and H are the deceased’s spouse and children. The Defendant is the deceased’s spouse and children.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 3, 7, Eul's 2 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole of the pleading or video

B. According to the above recognition of liability, as the deceased died due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s driver should be exempted from liability, on the ground that, even if the Defendant’s driver did not have the duty of care on the left and the right and the right and the right and the right of the rear, the Deceased could not be found who opened the intersection on an abnormal route, and therefore, the Defendant’s driver should not be negligent.

However, the driver of the defendant vehicle is the defendant vehicle, considering the size and length of the vehicle, and the reflection of the vehicle's speed, even in the case of U-turns permitted within the above intersection, in the absence of signal lights, and the accident of this case occurred during U-turns.