1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following additional payment order.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 12, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the results of fact inquiries and the whole purport of pleadings with respect to the Daejeon Police Station in the first instance court:

On November 20, 2006, Defendant F driven a G bus (hereinafter “instant bus”) on November 15:15, 2006, and moved to the right side of the bus at the construction site of the Seosung-dong Gyeongpungpungpung-dong, Daejeon Pungdong-dong, Seodong-gu, Daejeon, the Plaintiff C, who walked toward the left side from the right side of the bus to the right side of the bus, was over the right side of the bridge of the bus, walking to the right side of the bus.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Plaintiff

C owing to the instant accident, C suffered injury to the frame of the inner reproduction, the outer reproduction (the inner reproduction), the dives frame of the following bridge, and the wide range of arctal openings.

C. Plaintiff A and B are the parents of Plaintiff C, Plaintiff D and E are the siblings of Plaintiff C, and Defendant National Federation of Bus Transport Business Cooperatives (hereinafter “Defendant Federation”) is the mutual aid business entity which concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to the instant bus.

2. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of the recognition as above, since Defendant F, the driver of the bus of this case, caused the accident of this case due to negligence on the part of the owner of the bus of this case, the defendant F and the defendant federation, the mutual aid business operator of the bus of this case, are liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

B. The Defendants asserted the limitation on liability of the Defendants, on the ground that they were negligent in violating the duty of care of pedestrians to verify safety by examining the left and right of the crosswalks without Plaintiff C’s signal, and therefore, they asserted that the Defendants’ liability corresponding to the above negligence of Plaintiff C should be limited.

.all vehicles;