1. The Defendant’s KRW 144,840,043 as well as 5% per annum from July 2, 2015 to September 4, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to C New Fuel Truck/AL wing Fwinging Vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On December 12, 2012, at No. 20:00, the Plaintiff stopped at No. 3-7, the cargo center located in Daejeon Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon, the Plaintiff opened a door to load the Defendant’s vehicle before 4-5 meters from the summer-gu.

During the process, F, a driver of the Defendant vehicle, was moving back to get a door-to-door, and during which the Plaintiff’s body was loaded on the Defendant vehicle, and at the same time, there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s body was boomed, and there was an accident in which the Plaintiff’s body was blicked

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The instant accident suffered injury, such as the cerebral cerebral typosis, cerebral typosis, ductal typosis, duplal typium, and plelibral typium, etc.

C. The Plaintiff was hospitalized in G rice sources, etc. from December 12, 2012 to July 1, 2015.

Under the Industrial Accident Compensation Insurance Act, the Plaintiff received 32,751,530 won of temporary layoff benefits, 34,041,080 won of medical care benefits, and 12,267,080 won of disability benefits.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9, 10 (including branch numbers in the case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant's vehicle, and the defendant, who is the mutual aid business operator of the defendant's vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff due

B. According to the facts as seen earlier prior to limitation of liability, the instant accident was the main cause of the instant accident by the F’s breach of the duty of care, which is the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle, but on the other hand, the Plaintiff was aware that the Defendant’s vehicle was in the course of operating the vehicle. Accordingly, the instant accident was moving back to the said vehicle for its own safety.