1. The Defendant’s KRW 94,030,074 as well as 5% per annum from June 28, 2013 to January 8, 2019 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D buses around 16:10 on June 28, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”).

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff’s left-hand bridge part of the Plaintiff’s left-hand bridge part of the Defendant’s vehicle was the front right-hand bridge part of the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the vehicle, and bypassing the F department store room into the front side of the F department store in Jung-gu, Seoul. As seen below, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the upper left-hand pelle part, the left-hand pelle part, and the upper left-hand pelle part (hereinafter “instant accident”). As such, the Plaintiff suffered injury (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the driver of the Defendant’s vehicle operating a crosswalk on the road should thoroughly drive the Defendant’s vehicle without fulfilling his/her duty of care on the front side and the right side side, but the instant accident attributable to the Plaintiff who walked along the crosswalk while shocking the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle.

As to this, the Defendant: (a) the Defendant’s driver bypassed the vehicle according to the direction of the Institute of Information in charge of traffic management in front of the department store; and (b) the Plaintiff without complying with the direction

Although the Defendant asserted that there was an error of crossing without verifying the Defendant’s vehicle, it is not sufficient to recognize the Plaintiff’s fault as alleged by the Defendant solely on the descriptions or images of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, the Defendant was driving according to the instructions of the department staff as argued by the Defendant.

However, such circumstances are internal between the defendant and the department store operating company.