1. The Defendant’s KRW 5,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from October 20, 2014 to February 8, 2017.

1. Basic facts

A. At around 17:15 on October 20, 2014, B driven a C cross-city bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and was driving at a point of 108 kilometers in the direction of the Gangseo-dong Highway located in the Nowon-gu, Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, which was changed from two lanes to one lane on the left-hand part of the D Driving E vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) which was changed from two lanes to one lane on the right-hand part of the D Driving E vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and caused the Plaintiff, who was on the right-hand side of the said vehicle, to suffer injury, such as a fladulization of fladul and a pressure of 8 chest pressure.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

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

C. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10,776,760 for medical expenses paid by the Defendant as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da515094, and damages for delay thereof. On September 1, 2015, the Defendant rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the purport that the Plaintiff would pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 9,69,084 for the claim amounting to 90% and the damages for delay thereof, and the said ruling became final and conclusive on September 23, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

In regard to this, the Defendant alleged that the instant accident is an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s sudden change of course and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was caused by the former negligence on the part of the Plaintiff, and that there was no negligence on the Defendant’s driver. However, in full view of the aforementioned evidence and the overall purport of arguments, D, which was proceeding two lanes, attempted to change the Defendant’s vehicle into one lane prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant also tried to change the vehicle into one lane.