1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,664,981 as well as 5% per annum from April 27, 2014 to October 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact 1) B: (a) around 04:20 on April 27, 2014, the route cross-city bus C (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

A) While driving and driving on the road, at the third line of 335.39 km from the 3rd line of the coast of Annyang-gu, Manyang-gu, Manyang-si, the coast of the Highway at 335.39 km, one of the three-lanes did not enter the right-hand side, and some of the roads stopped across the side. The Plaintiff, with his own vehicle, was driving along the three-lanes, without discovering the Defendant’s vehicle, left the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle with the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered from the instant accident, i.e., the Plaintiff’s damage to the arctal, livers, and cage cage cages.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement on the Defendant’s vehicle. According to the above facts, the Defendant is responsible for compensating the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity of the Defendant’s vehicle. (b) The Defendant’s exemption port and the limitation of liability is asserting that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s total fault. However, the Defendant’s exemption ground is without merit since the Defendant’s vehicle driving route B was negligent in stopping the Defendant’s vehicle on the third line of an expressway where stopping is prohibited without taking particular safety measures at night from the right quarter due to the Defendant’s failure to take any measures at night, and the Defendant’s exemption ground is without merit. However, in light of the various circumstances indicated in the argument of the instant case, such as the Plaintiff’s fault that did not perform his duty at all, it appears that it would be reasonable to adjust the Defendant’s liability in light of the good faith or the principle of equity, and thus, it is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s compensation rate to the extent of 50%.