1. As to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party)’s KRW 5,00,00, and KRW 302,955,308 and each of the said money to the Appointed B, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party).

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) C, around 19:50 on March 5, 2014, driven D urban buses (hereinafter “Defendant bus”) and moved to a right side of the Defendant bus while driving in order to high distance from the F bank to the G bank in the direction of the e-mail. In light of the fact, C’s green signal, the designated person B, a crosswalkd on the pedestrian green signal, was shocked to the right side of the Defendant bus.

(2) In the instant accident, the Selectioner B suffered injuries, such as the so-called “instant accident” and (2) the spouse of the Selectioner B and the Defendant are mutual aid contractors who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant bus. The Plaintiff is the spouse of the Selectioner B and the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 6 (including branch numbers; 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 for damages suffered by the plaintiff and the designated party B due to the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity of defendant bus.

C. The defendant asserts to the effect that the defendant's liability should be limited since the accident of this case occurred since the designated party B had confirmed the situation where the front side of the defendant bus had already entered the crosswalk, and the pedestrian signal had been finished later and later entered the crosswalk, even if the pedestrian signal was finished.

Even if it is based on the black image at the time of the instant accident that was submitted by the Defendant after the closing of argument, even if the pedestrian signal had already been changed to green before the body of the Defendant bus transit to the intersection, the Defendant bus driver continued to drive at the speed of turning back without reducing the speed or temporarily suspending, and entered the Defendant bus at the crosswalk. The Appointer B, while the Defendant bus was not anticipated to continue to proceed to a bypass, was coming into the crosswalk normally according to the pedestrian green signal, and the Defendant bus was shocked without leaving a stop.