1. The Defendant’s KRW 46,694,681 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from December 12, 2015 to June 5, 2020.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) C is a freight vehicle D around 08:00 on December 12, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

ii)F cars driven by the Plaintiff’s son, the son of the Plaintiff, who entered the intersection of the front frack and was in direct control of normal fracks, from the niver nives (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in the niver distance of Spocheon-do.

2) The instant accident was shocked (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle, sustained injuries, such as Telecommunications Distress, etc. due to the instant accident.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle (based on recognition). It does not dispute (based on recognition), Gap evidence 2 through 6, Eul evidence 2 (each entry or video including each number, the inquiry results on the president of the G Association of this Court, the results of the physical diagnosis on the president of the H Hospital, the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole.

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant, a mutual aid business entity, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The Defendant’s limitation of liability is, due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s spouse, who was the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered injuries by the Plaintiff’s head, even though only her spouse was on board a minor gambling. This is due to the Plaintiff’s failure to sell the safety level, and the Plaintiff’s mistake is due to the cause or expansion of damages, and thus, the Defendant’s liability should be limited. However, the Defendant’s assertion that the circumstance alleged by the Defendant does not recognize that the Plaintiff did not sell the safety level at the time of the instant accident, or that it cannot be inferred, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s non-use of the safety level. Therefore,

2. The Plaintiff’s damages within the scope of liability for damages are as follows:

The period of time for the convenience of calculation shall be monthly.