1. The Defendant: 10,00,000 won for Plaintiff A; 70,372,192 won for Plaintiff B; and 5,000,000 won for Plaintiff C and each of the said money.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. A. Around 11:00 on May 9, 2015, D driven an E Village bus (hereinafter “diversing vehicle”) and brought a shock to the network F (hereinafter “the network seal”) crossing the left side from the road to the right side of the road, while bypassing from the area of the Kudu Pungdong-gu in Busan to the area of the Dong market. On the 22th day of the same month, D died of the deceased with a multi-surted long-term engine.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). (b)

As the inheritor of the deceased, there are plaintiffs A, B, and C, who are husbands, and among these, the plaintiff B received a qualified acceptance trial on the property of the deceased, and the plaintiff A and C renounced inheritance.

C. On September 2, 2015, D was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence in 6 months of imprisonment without prison labor for the violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which stated that “The instant traffic accident was committed by installing a crosswalk without signal lights, etc. at the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the front of the rear.”

(Resan District Court 2015 Highest 3759). D

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator with respect to the sea-going vehicles.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 6 through 8, Eul evidence 1 and video (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above recognition of liability and the above evidence, the traffic accident of this case is deemed to have occurred as a result of the negligence of driving a sea-going vehicle in the vicinity of the crosswalk, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their family members, due to the traffic accident of this case, as the mutual aid business operator of a sea-going vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Limit of liability, however, to the Deceased.