1. The Defendant’s KRW 50,09,015 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 27, 201 to October 15, 2014.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) Nonparty B’s ground for liability is that Nonparty B is a vehicle owned by Nonparty C on June 27, 2011, around 17:40.

(2) The Plaintiff’s vehicle was driving and entered the direction of the Seoul Mountain Complex located in the Crinam-gun, Ulsan-gun, Ulsan-gun, and the D bus owned by Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant”) on board the Plaintiff.

(2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant vehicle, was also at the same time entering the Defendant vehicle in line with one’s own car line. However, the Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant vehicle, was injured by the escape symptoms, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that seeks to compensate for human and material damage, etc. in relation to an accident that occurred during the operation of the Defendant vehicle, and the Intervenor joining the Defendant is the insurer of the first vehicle.

[Recognition of Facts] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2-1, 2-2, and the purport of oral argument

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the above accident as an operator of the defendant vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

C. The Intervenor joining the Defendant’s assertion on the limitation of liability argues that the Plaintiff should take account of the occurrence and expansion of damages due to the Plaintiff’s failure to wear the safety level at the time of the instant accident, but the said assertion is not accepted as there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred by the whole negligence of B, which is the driver of the first vehicle, and thus, the defendant should be exempted from liability. However, in the case of the passenger, the plaintiff asserted and prove that the passenger was killed in the act of intentional act or suicide without any negligence in the operation of the defendant vehicle, or recognized that the accident of this case occurred by force majeure. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is sufficient.