1. The Defendant: (a) paid to the Plaintiff A for KRW 29,783,90; (b) KRW 2,00,000; and (c) KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) E is a F Bus around November 16, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) around 09:42, 2015.

) On the south of the North Sung-gun by driving a motor vehicle, the plaintiff A was shocked by the plaintiff A, who driven the motor vehicle of the parallel without permission, driving the motor vehicle along the motor vehicle of the 90 Dolsan-Tol (hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case") at the speed of about 63 km from the side of the expressway, driving the motor vehicle of the Dolsan-do along the lane of the Dolsan-gun.

(2) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as light blood on the left-hand side without an open opening opening opening, e.g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant vehicle. 4) The Plaintiff B is the spouse of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff C is the head of the Plaintiff’s four children.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 5, 6 through 8, 13, Eul's evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant's defense of exemption and liability limits the defendant, despite the fact that the location of the accident in this case is prohibited from passing through or crossing an expressway, and the central separation zone and warning signs prohibiting crossing the center of the road are displayed, the plaintiff A, who goes beyond the central separation zone and went beyond the central separation zone, went beyond the road, and then the defendant A, was in close vicinity to the road, and the driver of the defendant vehicle must be exempted from the duty of care in expecting such a case, and therefore, the driver of the vehicle must be exempted from the duty of care.

Plaintiff

A.