1. The judgment of the first instance is modified as follows.

A. On March 30, 2018, around 15:20, D middle schools located in Dobong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts recognized;

A. On March 30, 2018, while driving G bus owned by F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff bus”) around 15:20 on March 30, 2018 and driving the front crosswalk of D secondary school located in Dobong-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City in a children protection zone, according to the vehicle’s walk, at the front of D secondary school located in H middle school located in H middle school protection zone, the Defendant, who was going from India to the right side of the Plaintiff bus with the speed of about 38.9km at a speed exceeding the restricted speed by using two lanes from the two-lanes of the D middle school, was faced with the above crosswalk’s stop signal at a speed of about 38.9km, but, in order to cross the above crosswalk to the port from the right side of the Plaintiff bus, the Defendant suffered an injury to the right side of the Plaintiff bus, such as the front gate and the front flaver, the front flaver and the upper right side of the Plaintiff bus, etc. (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(c)

The plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid agreement for the plaintiff bus.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Eul's statements 1, 5, 8, 9, 13, and 14; Gap's evidentiary images; Gap's Seoul Dobong Police Station at the first instance court; and the head of the local headquarters of the Seoul Metropolitan Government branch office of the Road Traffic Authority; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition 1), the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident, barring any special circumstance, as a mutual aid business operator of the Plaintiff bus.

2) As to this, the Plaintiff did not have a duty of care to ensure that there is a person driving a crosswalk without permission by disregarding the signal to the Plaintiff bus driver E, and E does not have a limited speed within the children protection zone.