1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 113,944,710, Plaintiff B, and C, respectively, KRW 70,963,140 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) D driving a bus around 06:50 on August 11, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and driving two lanes in front of the new air traffic lane in front of the new air traffic lane as at the end of Sinpo City at the end of Sinpo City (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) at the speed of 105 km (80 km at a speed) per hour from the area of the Gnpo Zone to the area of Sinpo-Gun, Yongnam-gun.

While changing the course to a three-lane, the driver found the FF truck running in the three-lane to the right side in order to avoid this, and then changed the direction to the right side, and then the H H head head portion located in the front of the G FF truck parked in the above side of the road to the right side of the defendant.

(2) In the instant accident, H (hereinafter “the deceased”) died in two parts. (3) In the event of this case, H (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(3) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, Plaintiff B, and C’s children, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 5 evidence, each entry or video (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) of Gap 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. Whether the liability is limited or not, the Defendant asserts to the purport that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability because the deceased’s fault was that he illegally parkeded a food truck on the side, which is a zone where the parking and stopping is prohibited, but it does not constitute a zone where parking and stopping is prohibited under the Road Traffic Act (it shall not be deemed that the location of the accident in this case is the side of the expressway or motorway to which Article 64 subparag. 3 of the Road Traffic Act applies, as the Defendant asserts), and the accident in this case is done by changing the tea due to the violation and speed of the Defendant’s duty to stop on the frontway by the driver of the vehicle.