1. The Defendant’s KRW 72,120,878 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from November 27, 2012 to January 12, 2016, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Defendant is a small passenger and B bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”) corporation.

(2) On November 27, 2012, C used the Defendant bus at a speed of 15:40 km and proceeded to a road located in Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, Seocheon-si, in accordance with five-lanes between the 6-lane and the 6-lane between the 6-lane and the 60 km/h intersection at a speed of 60 km/h to a speed of 50 km, the vehicle line was changed to the 6-lane prior to the right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of right of freedom

(3) Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was faced with the upper part of the 5th century, the upper part of the upper part of the body frame, the upper part of the upper part of the body frame, and the upper part of the upper part of the body frame. [Grounds for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, 4, 5 evidence, appraiser E’s appraisal report, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

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

C. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s negligence is reflected more than 70% or is an accident by force majeure, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff was proceeding in violation of the stop signal at the center, rather than the edge of a road, on a narrow road; (b) the Defendant bus inevitably continued to grow straight by the relation beyond the stop line at the time of termination of the straight-line signal on the front side; and (c) the Plaintiff could not anticipate that the reverse driving was in violation of the signal.

However, even though the road on which the defendant bus was in progress is wider, the plaintiff was in the influence of the road, but it was controlled by signal, etc., and when the defendant bus was in the intersection.