1. The counterclaim Defendant (the Plaintiff) is entitled to KRW 10,895,916 against the counterclaim (the Defendant) and its related amount from May 20, 2015 to November 28, 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle mutual aid contract with respect to B chartered buses (hereinafter “instant bus”) on March 9, 2013 to June 8, 2013.

B. At around 09:10 on May 4, 2013, the bus of this case: (a) excavated the rear of Nonparty C’s vehicle located in the front line of the road in the mountain tunnel in Seoul direction; and (b) as a result, the Defendant, who was on board the bus of this case, was injured by salt, tension, salt, tension, etc. in the field of the shoulder section in the field of the shoulder.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, entry in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's damage caused by the accident of this case is KRW 627,600, and the plaintiff's obligation to pay insurance money to the defendant in relation to the accident of this case does not exceed the above amount.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that due to the accident of this case, the defendant suffered total damages of KRW 31,892,874, including the daily income of KRW 680,324, KRW 5,212, and KRW 5,212,550, KRW 20 million, and KRW 31,892,874, and the defendant filed against the plaintiff for payment of the above money and damages for delay.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the accident of this case was caused by the mistake of the bus driver of this case, which neglected the duty of safe driving, and thus, the plaintiff, the insurer of a sea-going vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case.

B. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant was negligent in not wearing the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and thus, the Plaintiff should limit the Plaintiff’s liability by taking account of the Defendant’s negligence. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant did not wear the safety belt at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other reason to limit liability.