1. The Defendant: KRW 15,00,000 to Plaintiff A; KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B; and each of them, from February 17, 2014 to July 17, 2016.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 17, 2014, at around 21:10, C driven a Drocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded along the intersection of “F” in front of the Defendant vehicle with two-lanes from the direction of the mountain region to the marine traffic zone of E in Busan Shipping Daegu, along the two-lanes, from the direction of the mountain region, and the Plaintiff, at the right side of the Defendant vehicle, who was walking along the way to the port from the direction of the Defendant vehicle due to the negligent negligence in violation of the signal, was shocked by the front part of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered injury to the aggregate Section 1, which requires medical treatment for 12 weeks.

B. The New University Doctrine’s diagnosis and assessment revealed that the instant accident led to the Plaintiff Company A’s symptoms and physical emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emeric emer

C. On the other hand, the plaintiff B is the spouse of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-2 through 5, and the result of the commission of physical examination to the director of the High University and the director of the High University

2. Occurrence of and limitation on liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is responsible for compensating the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement on the defendant vehicle.

B. The defendant asserts that, as the plaintiff A was negligent in crossinging the crosswalk at night, 30% of the defendant's responsibility should be offset against negligence.

According to the above evidence, the plaintiff A was shocked the crosswalk installed in the accident site of this case according to the pedestrian signal, and was shocked by the defendant vehicle at a point beyond the crosswalk in the middle of the road.