1. The Defendant: KRW 73,328,779 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from December 8, 2015 to September 22, 2017.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) B: (a) around 12:29 December 8, 2015, CK5 siren (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving a vehicle and driving a road near the south of 1km in Jeju, while driving a road near the south of the Ekm in the middle of the street from the long-distance side of the luule Triririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririririri, the fronter of the F vehicle running in the opposite direction was shocked by the fronter of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the back seat of Defendant 1’s driver’s seat due to the instant accident, suffered injury, such as the cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cage cages, the left sle sle sle sle

3 The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the defendant vehicle.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff, while working at the site of the Construction of New Housing in Jeju-do, agreed to travel along with the Working Group leader and Dong members working together with the materials that had been delayed in bringing into the site of the Construction of New Housing in Jeju-do. The instant accident was caused by Hansan, taking advantage of the back seat of the Defendant’s vehicle leased by the Working Group.

The plaintiff did not wear a safety belt.

In full view of all the circumstances, including the purpose and background of the vehicle operation, the personal relationship between the Plaintiff and the operator, etc., it is reasonable to reduce the Defendant’s liability in line with the principle of good faith and the principle of equity to reduce the Defendant’s liability. Since the Plaintiff did not wear safety belts, the scope of the Defendant’s liability is limited to 80% in consideration of the calculation of

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff's neglect of duty to urge safety driving should also be taken into consideration by negligence.

The driver of a vehicle shall drive the vehicle significantly in distress.

for any other reason.