1. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff A KRW 133,319,50, and KRW 500,000 to Plaintiff B, respectively, and KRW 200,000 to Plaintiff C, D, E, and F.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) G is a H tourist bus around 19:07 on August 22, 2016 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A driver is driving his driving and driving his driving and driving his driving a ambal distance in front of the Sejong Park in the direction of the Defendant vehicle in front of the front side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) while making a non-protected left-hand turn at the right-hand side of the Gu office of the member in the direction of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of Ansan-si, one of the four-lanes in front of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of the Gu of Ansan-si.

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered injury, such as the chief executive officer to the right side and the senior executive officer, etc.

3) Plaintiff B is the spouse of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C and D are the parents of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff E and F are the children of Plaintiff A. The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle. [This ground for recognition] fact that there is no dispute, and evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 5

(2) Each entry and video of evidence Nos. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to the recognition of liability, the Plaintiff sustained the injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiffs for the damages incurred by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant

C. However, according to the above evidence, since the accident location of this case is where the left-hand turn is allowed, the plaintiff A, as well as the plaintiff A, has been negligent in neglecting the operation of the vehicle to turn to the left-hand turn at the front bank, even though the movement of the vehicle to turn to the left-hand turn is well examined, and such errors by the plaintiff A were caused by the occurrence and expansion of damages caused by the accident of this case. Thus, the plaintiff A's negligence is deemed 10%, and the defendant's responsibility is limited to

2. Scope of liability for damages.