1. The Defendant: (a) from September 18, 2017 to Plaintiff A with respect to KRW 120,430,070 for each of the said money and each of the said money.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. 1) E is a F bus affiliated with a military bus around 11:05 on September 18, 2017 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) A person driving his/her vehicle and driving his/her vehicle at approximately 865 m20m local highways located in the front bank of the Gero-gun Gero-Gun Gero-Gun, Gero-Gun at a erogic speed from the erogic boundary to the H. The above road was a road in the erogbbbb where the lane marked by the yellow median central line is marked. E was a road in the erogbb where the lane is marked. E was a road running along the center line of the road due to occupational negligence, which did not automatically enter and control the speed, without reducing the speed on the above erogtic zone.

(B) The part of the driver’s seat in front of the driver’s seat of the J-wing Franf truck was driven by the Defendant. As a result, the Deceased caused the death of the deceased on the spot due to the cardiopulmonary stop in which the deceased was a person prior to his death (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff is the deceased’s spouse, and the Plaintiff B and C are the deceased’s children, and the Defendant is the mutual aid operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1-4, 14, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs, who are the deceased and their bereaved family members, as mutual aid business operators of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Defendant should limit the Defendant’s liability by taking account of the negligence on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle driving beyond the central line, as it neglected to take measures to prevent accidents, such as sending, speeding, and avoiding light signals to the Defendant’s vehicle driving beyond the central line.

However, the evidence No. 21, alone, knows in advance that the Defendant’s vehicle goes beyond the central line at the accident location where the Deceased was an acute kib.