1. The Defendant amounting to KRW 87,493,639, and KRW 5% per annum from October 15, 2013 to February 16, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) On October 15, 2013, Nonparty B driving the Defendant Vehicle at around 13:00 (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) and driving the Defendant Vehicle at around 13:00, and driving the Defendant Vehicle at the office of the office of the office of the office of management in the Gosung-gun, the unification outlook unit (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”) passed through the required steel section due to construction, and the Defendant Vehicle was severely skeed. Accordingly, the Plaintiff, who was on board the Defendant Vehicle, suffered injury, such as the 12 chest pressure pressure smoke and the chest smoke.

(2) The defendant is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the above vehicle as the insurer of the above defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts as to whether to limit liability is negligent in failing to wear a safety labelling at the time of the instant accident, and that the Plaintiff’s above negligence should be taken into account in determining the scope of liability for damages.

However, it is not enough to recognize the fact that the plaintiff did not wear a safety bell solely on the part of the plaintiff's necessity. Rather, considering the following circumstances, i.e., the non-party B, the driver of the defendant vehicle, stated that all passengers including the plaintiff, had worn a safety bell at the time of the accident in this case (Evidence No. 9), and ii the accident in this case occurred in the course of passing the part of the defendant vehicle, and even if the plaintiff was on board the front seat of the defendant vehicle, there was no other harm to the part of the defendant vehicle, such as cather, even though he was on board the back seat of the defendant vehicle, the plaintiff is deemed to have worn a safety bell at the time of the accident, and thus, the defendant's assertion against this is against the above.