1. The Defendant’s KRW 23,348,789 as well as 5% per annum from July 20, 2015 to September 21, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) B, around 00:50 on July 20, 2015, driven a Ccar (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and proceeded two-lanes of the two-lanes of the two-lanes in front of the Dcheon-si in the front of the Dcheon-si At Do, to the seat of the Jeju National University, and discovered the dead body late on the front bank, avoided it, and avoided it, while keeping the border line on the right side of the road, and then received the central separation zone.

(2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the rear seat of the Defendant’s vehicle due to the instant accident (hereinafter “instant accident”), suffered bodily injury, such as plehion pressure straw, etc.

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

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 4 through 7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence or video (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness Eul's testimony and the purport of whole pleadings

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

C. Whether liability is limited, however, the defendant's liability is limited to 90% since the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident in this case and the damage was increased due to this.

The defendant argues that as a joint lessee of the defendant vehicle, the plaintiff was in fact sharing the operation control and operation profit in relation to the rental car company, which is the owner of the defendant vehicle, or he was in a fluorial state, and that the defendant's liability should be limited because B did not urge the safety driving even though she was driven in violation of the speed limit at the time of the accident.

According to the witness B's testimony, B personally got a siren (which seems to have been temporarily lent due to the damage of the vehicle owned by B) and the Plaintiff is the Defendant to receive contact with E and travel with B.