1. The plaintiffs' appeals and the defendants' appeals are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

3...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 11 and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 11 (including each number);

(1) The Federation of the Korea Passenger Transport Business Association (hereinafter “Defendant Association”) is a mutual aid business entity that has concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to the E-si owned by the Defendant Dong-si Taxi Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”).

(2) On October 5, 201, D, a driver of the Defendant Company, driving the Defendant Company, driving the Defendant Company at around 10:40, in order to proceed with the Defendant Company’s U.S. A driver’s I driver’s U.S. (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) who entered the said intersection in order to drive into the Defendant Company’s U.S. A driver’s lubbbb transport vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) on the right-hand apartment at the live-side room of the said vehicle with the negligence of not sufficiently seeing the front-side and right-hand side from the Hmobur area to the Gmobur area.

(3) Due to the instant accident, Plaintiff A suffered from an injury, such as the Hadern salt, etc.

(4) Plaintiff B is the wife of Plaintiff A, and Plaintiff C is the child of Plaintiff A.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant company is the employer of D or the operator of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant federation is jointly liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as well as the mutual aid fund for the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendants asserts that the Defendants’ limitation of liability should be taken into account in determining the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendants, since they were negligent in neglecting the Plaintiff A’s duty of good faith and the duty of good faith space.

According to the above evidence, the intersection of this case is controlled by signal apparatus, etc.