A. The reasoning for this part of the facts of recognition is that the court stated the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance ("the occurrence of damages liability of 1.1."). Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. (1) According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff was injured due to the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring special circumstances.

(2) The Defendant’s argument regarding the Defendant’s assertion (A) argues that: (a) at night at the time of the instant accident, the streetlight was not installed at the location of the accident; and (b) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops rhym in the direction of at least three lanes to 10: thus, the Defendant’s driver’s negligence cannot be recognized in the instant accident because the head of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear light alone could not be recognized as a prior accident at a distance; (b) further, the Defendant’s driver’s collision with the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the left-hand left-hand in order to avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle parked.

(B) Therefore, the main text of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act provides that “A person who operates an automobile for his own sake shall be liable to compensate for damages caused by the operation of the automobile concerned when he dies or gets injured by another person.” However, in the case of death or injury caused by a person who is not a passenger, the driver himself shall not be negligent in paying due attention to the operation of the automobile, but shall be proved to have been intentional or negligent by a third person other than the victim or the driver, and there was no defect in the structure or function of the automobile.