1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 70,480,666; (b) KRW 66,980,666 to Plaintiff B; and (c) KRW 66,66 to each of the said money. From June 18, 2013 to June 15, 2015.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) The Defendant is a new tourist corporation and C chartered bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) On June 18, 2013, D operated the Defendant’s vehicle (Ma1) around 19:46 on June 18, 2013, and D used the left turn signal at the scopic area of the 1655-Gu, Gwanak-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, using the signal to turn left at the scopic area from the scopic body at the scopic body of the scopic body, D was not found to have taken the intersection by the scopic bank to the scopic bank in the scopic digital body area, and received the front part of the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The first place from which E started was a crosswalk without signal lights, and the crosswalk when the Defendant’s vehicle passes, the signal signal from green to red was changed during the crossing, and the accident place is a place where the left left turn is allowed only for route buses.

3) On June 23, 2013, E, due to the instant accident, died as brain livers around 11:15 on June 23, 2013 (hereinafter “the deceased”).

(2) On July 14, 2009, Plaintiff A and a national who reported a marriage on July 14, 2009, Plaintiff B are children of the deceased, who are the People’s Republic of China. [The grounds for recognition: facts without dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, 13, 15 through 23, 26, Eul’s evidence, Eul’s evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the deceased, etc. due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator.

C. The Defendant asserts that D is only a negligence to the extent that D had attempted to make a left-hand turn turn, and that D’s negligence should be reflected more than 60-70% in comparison with D’s negligence on the occurrence of the instant accident while making a walk without permission in contravention of the pedestrian signal.

However, as D violated the signal, it was difficult for many people to see the movement of the deceased, because D was in a prohibited place.