1. The Defendant’s KRW 122,866,140 as well as 5% per annum from December 8, 2011 to December 23, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On December 8, 2011, the Plaintiff driven the Plaintiff’s car B car (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s car”) and left straight along the two-lane road in the direction of the head of the port where the death distance in Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun, Seocheon-gun’s Marin-gun’s Marin-gun’s Marin-gun’s Marin-gun’s front part of the city bus (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s vehicle”) holding the above death distance in the direction of the head of the port and left straight along the two-lane road in the direction of the head of the port where he met with the Plaintiff’s left front part of the vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in this case”). Accordingly, the Plaintiff suffered from the injury, such as the whole part of the Plaintiff’s urban bus (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant’s vehicle”) and the accident where the part of the Plaintiff’s left front part of the vehicle was faced with the same (hereinafter referred to as the “accident in detail).

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

C. The instant accident is attributable to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 13, 14 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The instant accident subject to limitation of liability occurred due to the Defendant’s driver’s breach of the duty of care to see the front line while entering the intersection for a temporary stop or slowly, and the Plaintiff did not fully exercise his duty to see the front line when entering the intersection; the Plaintiff also erred by failing to pay due attention to the front line space; the Plaintiff’s road driving along the Plaintiff’s vehicle is larger than the front line of the Defendant’s vehicle; the Plaintiff’s priority to cross-road traffic was over the front line at the time of the instant accident; the Plaintiff was able to see at night at the time of the instant accident; the instant accident was an intersection where the traffic control was not performed (e.g., on-and-off state of signal, etc.); and the Plaintiff’s U.S. alcohol (less than 0.01% of alcohol content).