A. At around 06:20 on May 12, 2013, B: (a) private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”)

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was injured by the Plaintiff’s driver’s injury, i.e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., g., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e., e.,

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid association that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy facts, Gap evidence 1 through 3, Eul evidence 1 and 2

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages sustained by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff stopped the off-to-land after the stop line, but failed to perform his duty of care for the vehicles entering the intersection in violation of the signal immediately after the alteration of the intersection signal, and that such error contributed to the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident.

However, the plaintiff's direct progress signal was set to 06:27:47 seconds, and the accident of this case occurred at 06:27:50 seconds later than 3 seconds later, and it is difficult to view that the plaintiff has a duty to look at whether the plaintiff has a motor vehicle traveling along the intersection by violating the signal, even after 3 seconds later after 3 seconds later. Although the plaintiff stopped after the stop of the above Obaba, the accident of this case occurred after 3 seconds later after the plaintiff's direction signal was turned to 3 seconds later.