1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 73,825,394 against the Plaintiff and its related thereto from October 15, 2013 to February 15, 2017 against the Defendant.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) B are as follows: (a) C chartered buses around 13:00 on October 15, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

2) When driving the vehicle and driving the vehicle, the vehicle passed through the required steel section due to the construction while driving the vehicle at the seat of the office of the office of the office of the head of the Gangwon-gun with the prospect for unification (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Plaintiff was suffering from injury, such as pressure pressure pyrosis and chest pyritis.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the above vehicle as the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the scope of damages should be taken into account in determining the scope of damages, given that the Plaintiff was negligent in failing to wear the safety labelling at the time of the instant accident.

However, in full view of the fact that there was damage on the part of the plaintiff's main base and the fact that the plaintiff was faced with the ceiling of the defendant's vehicle, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff's safety mark was not used. Rather, the following circumstances are the following: ① the driver of the defendant vehicle: (a) the driver of the defendant vehicle stated that all passengers including the plaintiff et al. had worn the safety mark at the time of the accident (Evidence No. 9); and (b) the accident occurred while the defendant vehicle passed through the sections of the main base. At the time of the accident, it seems that the plaintiff was wearing the safety mark at the time of the accident, taking into account the fact that the plaintiff was on the back of the defendant vehicle, but there was no other damage except for the drilling.