1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 497,124,265, and KRW 5,00,000 for each of the said money and each of the said money to the Plaintiff B and C, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) D is the E-city bus around 20:13 on February 2, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

A) A driver of Jongno-gu in front of the Seoul Jongno-gu Seoul F building, 1 course four-lanes of the four-lanes from the intersection to the intersection by the intersection by approximately 20km in speed, and the intersection by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel, and the parallel by the parallel by the parallel by the plaintiff A without finding that the crosswalk by the parallel by the parallel by the left side is crossing from the right side by the line by the pedestrian’s signals, and the part by the parallel by the part by the driver in front of the right side of the defendant’s vehicle by the parallel by the parallel by the parallel, and both sides by the front side of the right side. As a result, the plaintiff suffered a multi-section of the opening by the parallel by the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”).

(2) Plaintiff B and C are the parents of Plaintiff A, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-3 evidence, 14 evidence, Eul 1-3, Eul 5-7 evidence and video (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant, despite the duty of care to look closely about the passage of the vehicle to the plaintiff A and to walk safely, alleged that the defendant was negligent in not viewing the defendant's vehicle properly at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue. However, the evidence submitted by the above defendant alone is somewhat insufficient to recognize that the defendant's negligence as alleged by the plaintiff A was caused, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that there was negligence. Thus, the above assertion is without merit.

2. The following shall be stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.