1. The Defendant: 5% per annum from August 15, 2016 to June 8, 2017 with respect to each of the Plaintiffs’ KRW 228,802,584 and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) C driving a D bus around 22:00 on August 15, 2016 (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeding one-lane with the entrance of 809-1, at the city of Pakistan-si, from the face of the court from the door-to-door area, at the city of Pakistan-si.

In order to overtake a bus stopped at the bus stops in the front of the Defendant vehicle, the Defendant Party E, who was at the center of the central line, was shocked from the right side of the Defendant vehicle to the left side of the crosswalk without signal lights.

(2) On August 24, 2016, E (hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”) died on or around 08:35, while having received treatment by suffering from cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral Spa

(3) The plaintiffs are the parents of the deceased, and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator who has concluded a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Eul 1 and 5 evidence or images (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 the deceased and the plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. Whether to limit liability or not, the defendant argued to the purport that the deceased was erroneous in crossing the road beyond the crosswalk and that the plaintiffs, who are the parents of the deceased, were negligent in giving lessons and guidance to the deceased, and thus, the defendant's liability should be limited. However, as seen earlier, the accident of this case occurred in the course of the defendant's breaking the center line on the one-lane, so it cannot be deemed that there was a causal relationship between the deceased's crossing and the accident of this case, and that the vehicle of this case, who was a building of the crosswalk, did not have a duty to expect and pay attention to the vehicle of this case, that the vehicle of this case should be driven by the central line.