1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 122,087,591, Plaintiff B’s KRW 117,837,591, and each of the said money from October 27, 2016.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C is a D bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

A) On October 27, 2016, C is a person engaged in driving duties. At around 23:58, on the road located in E at the right side of the Defendant vehicle, C driven the Defendant vehicle and proceeded at about 60km a speed of two lanes from the middle of the two-lanes. At that time, due to the headlights of the vehicle driven at night, it is difficult to cherbly, and at the same time, there was a duty of care to reduce the speed and to safely drive the vehicle on the road because it is possible for the driver to walk on the road due to bus stops in the front direction. Nevertheless, C was negligent in driving the vehicle while neglecting this, C was paid the F in front of the right side of the Defendant vehicle. Ultimately, C caused the death of the Defendant vehicle on November 30, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “accident”).

2) The Plaintiffs are parents of F (hereinafter “the deceased”).

At the time of the accident, the deceased did not have a spouse or lineal descendant.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the defendant's vehicle (based on recognition). It includes the fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1 through 8, 13 through 15 (if available, the number may be included).

hereinafter the same shall apply.

(1) The purport of each entry or video of the evidence of subparagraph (1), and of the entire pleading

B. Accordingly, according to the recognition and limitation of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiffs, who are the bereaved family members of the deceased and the deceased, for damages arising from the instant accident pursuant to Article 3 of the Automobile Accident Compensation Guarantee

However, according to the grounds for recognition mentioned above, the deceased has taken the line on the roadside without using the above side in spite of the length of the side which is able to walk on the right side of the roadside, and the driving direction of the defendant's vehicle.