1. The Defendant’s KRW 63,003,056 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from March 17, 2013 to November 4, 2015, and the following.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On March 17, 2013, the Plaintiff was on board at around 17:00, and moved to the Human Resources Development Service of the Republic of Korea along with two-lanes of the two-lane bus platform in front of the Seoul Northernbuk-gu, Seoul, the Korea Mine Technology Institute bus platform. The Plaintiff sustained injury, such as a chest 12, by continuously shocking urban buses standing on the right side of the road and on the bus platform, that the instant vehicle stopped on the right side of the road.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the instant vehicle.

C. Since the instant accident occurred due to the operation of the instant vehicle, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 11, 22 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s assertion of limitation on liability

A. The defendant asserts that the defendant did not wear the safety belt, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the defendant's above assertion is not acceptable.

B. The defendant asserts that the defendant's limitation of liability following the accompanying succession should be limited since he operated the instant vehicle in order to bring the plaintiff to his house after having provided meals with the plaintiff.

In light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the personal relationship between the passenger and the operator, the background leading up to the vehicle, the purpose of the demand for the accompanying and active nature, etc., if the operator of the vehicle permits the boarding for the convenience and interest of the passenger without any consideration, and the passenger receives the provision for the convenience and interest of the passenger, it is very unreasonable to impose the offender the same responsibility as the general traffic accident on the perpetrator in view of the principle of good faith or equity.