1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 213,681,401, Plaintiff B’s KRW 209,181,401, and each of the said money from August 17, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) The fact of recognition C is as follows: (a) D cross-city buses around 15:02 on August 17, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

ii)A vehicle fxex e-car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff vehicle”) of e-driving, which is left left on the left side from the right side of the Madern Defendant’s running due to an occupational negligence, even though there is a duty of care to verify and safely proceed, while running from the intersection at a speed of 52 km per hour from the right side to the commercial road at the speed of 52 km per hour, at the intersection where no signal, etc. is available in front of the bus stop at the speed of the Madern-Eup in Jeju-si.

) The front part of the Defendant’s vehicle is the right side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and due to its shock, G (hereinafter referred to as “the network”).

(B) Around 17:20 on the same day, the back door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door door, resulting in death due to severe brain damage (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiffs are the parents of the Deceased, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3, 16 evidence, Eul 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, as mutual aid business operators of the defendant vehicle.

C. 1) However, there is negligence on the deceased who did not wear a safety bell, and such negligence is deemed to have contributed to the expansion of damage caused by the instant accident, so the Defendant’s responsibility is limited to 90% (the deceased’s fault ratio 10%). In addition, the Defendant took part in the instant accident while the deceased was aboard the Plaintiff’s vehicle and was conducting an ecological investigation conducted at the graduate school to which the deceased belongs, and the deceased was the deceased.