Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

A. Nonparty C holds the Seoul Special Metropolitan City D Transport Business License and owns the E-D vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Vehicle”) according to the above license, and is a member of the Plaintiff’s association.

B. The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with FF vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

C. At around 22:49 on March 9, 2019, the Defendant vehicle continued to proceed at the same speed even after the completion of the straight-line report on the straight-line crossing in the front of the Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government on the red-distance outflow area and the yellow signal changed to the yellow signal. On the front of entering the intersection, even though the yellow signal changed to the red signal, the Defendant vehicle was straighted and cut down the vehicle of the Plaintiff, which was going to the U.S. in the opposite line, in turn, while the yellow signal changed to the red signal.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

On April 8, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,081,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 4 and images (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The following circumstances revealed in light of the evidence revealed prior to the determination of the percentage of negligence, i.e., (i) the Defendant’s vehicle continued to proceed at the same speed without speed, even though it was confirmed that the straighten signal of the above intersection was changed to the yellow signal, which is the place where the instant accident occurred, and (ii) the Defendant’s vehicle had already changed to the red signal prior to the passage of the stop line on the above intersection, but entered the intersection by disregarding it, and (iii) the Defendant argued that the vehicle was predicted during the process of the Plaintiff’s U-turn, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle appears to have been ordinarily U-turned in accordance with the new code.