1.(a)

On April 10, 2013, around 08:58, the traffic accident occurred in front of the C Pharmacy located in Young-gu, Busan.

The main lawsuit and counterclaim are also examined.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 08:58 on April 10, 2013, Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”)’s driver D, a driver of the urban bus, who was affiliated with Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”), was driving a bus in violation of a stop signal while driving the bus in front of the C pharmacy located in Busan Young-gu, in the direction of the traffic, from the direction of the traffic distance along the two lanes, and making a stop before the crosswalk depending on the signal of stop. However, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) who was located on the right side of the bus in order to cut off the Ma-cock, went beyond the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) who was located on the right side of the bus. D, without being aware of it, was able to walk the bus in violation of the stop signal and suffered the Defendant’s shocking Dak wus by shocking the Defendant.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

In the event of the Plaintiff’s damage compensation liability, the Plaintiff’s driver, while proceeding in violation of the vehicle stop signal, caused the instant accident, and D cannot easily be ruled out that the possibility of rescue according to the Defendant’s structural signal would have been saved if the accident occurred according to the progress signal. As such, D’s violation of the signal and the instant accident can be found to have proximate causal relation.

Therefore, the defendant, who is the user of D, is liable for the damages caused by the accident in this case as an operator under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

C. The limitation of liability for damages: Provided, however, the Defendant: (a) opened a bus qui, which was stopped on the wind that was set off immediately before the instant accident, and contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages; (b) it is reasonable to limit the Plaintiff’s liability to 60% in consideration of such circumstances.

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 2 and 7 (including paper numbers)

2. The following shall be stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.