2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to a private taxi owned by D (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-owned vehicle”).

On August 27, 2017, Co-Defendant C of the first instance trial driven a FF vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "non-party vehicle") and changed the lane from the two-lane, which is the left-hand one, to the three-lane, which is the two-lane, the left-hand one, while driving the vehicle in the direction in writing at the intersection of Busan-dong Busan-dong, Busan-dong, and the defendant driving a G vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") using the non-party vehicle in the same two-lane, changed the lane to the four-lane through the three-lane, which is the right-hand one.

The Plaintiff’s vehicle running three lanes at the time changed from four lanes to five lanes to avoid the Defendant’s vehicle, and during which the H, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered injuries, such as climatic salt and tensions, tensions, tensions, strings, and strings, which require two-time medical treatment.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). From September 20, 2017 to October 31, 2017, the Plaintiff paid 3,495,060 won in total, including 1,95,060 won in treatment expenses, and 1,500,000 won in agreement.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's accident of this case, as the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 11 or the purport of the whole pleadings, is that the plaintiff's vehicle and defendant's vehicle, who continued to turn to the left, changed their lanes in order to turn to the left, and the plaintiff's vehicle, who continued to go to a right-hand road to avoid shock with the defendant's vehicle, was rapidly changing their lanes. Thus, the negligence ratio between the defendant and C should be 70% in total.

Therefore, the defendant should pay 2,446,540 won (=3,495,060 won x 70%) and damages for delay corresponding to the above ratio of negligence among the amount paid by the plaintiff jointly with C.

The driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was urgent immediately after the Plaintiff’s driver was able to get off the Plaintiff’s vehicle and proceeded without complying with the safety distance in dialogue with H.