1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 88,923,056, Plaintiff B, and C respectively; and (b) KRW 700,000 from November 9, 2012 to November 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. D, around 22:55 on November 9, 2012, driving a small-scale E business cab (hereinafter referred to as “fluoral vehicle”) and, at the same time, D set the front distance of G located in F located in Busan Dong-gu to the left-hand side of the side of the right-hand side in the direction-hand side of the road while he was sitting down on the left-hand side of the side of the right-hand side in the direction-hand side.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

A suffered injury due to the instant traffic accident, such as the pressure damage to the left-hand part and the part adjacent to the satisfaction.

C. Plaintiff B is Plaintiff A’s father and Plaintiff C’s mother, and the Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with Plaintiff Seaing Vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 4, video (if any, including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability and the above evidence, the traffic accident in this case is deemed to have caused the negligence of driving a sea-going vehicle with the duty to keep the left at the cross-road intersection where D does not have a signal signal, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the traffic accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of a sea-going vehicle under Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, unless there are special circumstances.

B. The limitation of liability, however, is limited to the defendant's liability to 90% in consideration of these circumstances, since it is recognized that the plaintiff A was involved in the traffic accident in this case and that such negligence also caused the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case and the expansion of damage.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that at the time of the accident, the plaintiff A's bridge was coming out of the yellow domin line, which is the boundary of the lane from the side, and that the plaintiff A's bridge was returned to the scene of the accident No. 3.