1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 16,856,00 for Plaintiff A, KRW 300,000 for Plaintiff B, and KRW 100,00 for Plaintiff C, D, and E, respectively.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 15:15 on February 24, 2012, Nonparty F driven G buses, and proceeded on the street in front of the Gangnam-dong Home Stacker’s front side at the seat of the office of Gangseo-gu Office to a rooftop distance gate, and stopped according to the traffic signal, Nonparty F received the back part of the Plaintiff A’s HDappp vehicle from the front part of the said bus, and caused the Plaintiff, who was on board the said bus, to suffer injury, such as a light salt, etc.

(2) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the above bus, and the plaintiff B is the husband of the plaintiff, and the plaintiff C, D, and E are children of the plaintiff C, D, and E.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute; Gap 1 through 4; Gap 5's evidence 1, 2, 6; Gap 9-1 through 5; Gap 10; Gap 11-1 through 8; Eul 1, 2; the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments]

B. According to the above facts of recognition of liability, since the above accident occurred due to negligence that the F is negligent in maintaining and driving a safety distance with the front vehicle even though it has an obligation to maintain and drive the safety distance with the front vehicle, the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business entity of the bus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred

C. As to the Defendant’s assertion (1) the Defendant’s negligence, which the Plaintiff did not fasten the safety level, and the damage was increased by this, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the negligence should be set off in consideration of such circumstances, but the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff A did not fasten the safety level mark, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

[As alleged by the Defendant, the facts indicated in the evidence No. 9-4 (Real Dust Survey Report) that the Plaintiff was unable to know whether the Plaintiff was at the time of the accident, but it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff had not sold the safety level at that time]. (2) Next, the Defendant intended to pass through the intersection by the Plaintiff.