A. The Defendant is a corporation established for the purpose of the transportation business of taxi passengers, etc., and is the owner of B-si (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”), and the Plaintiff is the owner of D who drives C-vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

B. Around February 21, 2014, when driving the Defendant’s vehicle, E, a worker of the Defendant, was driving the Defendant’s vehicle and driving the G E-ray in front of the G M-art, which is located in the Cheongdong-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Chungcheongnam-gu, Cheongdong-si, from the shooting distance of the J-gu, to the H-top and the S-ri distance slope, while violating the signal to the front red signal, while continuing to run in the front red signal, and the Plaintiff, who was on board the front line of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, violated the signal to the left left-to the front left-hand turn turn turn on the front left-hand turn of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, due to the shocking of the Plaintiff’s vehicle from the front left-hand edge, the upper right-hand shoulder, the upper left-hand left-hand part, the lower left-hand part, and the spaw and the spafing in the front.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case"). 【No dispute exists, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and 7 (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact that the above recognition was based on the liability for damages, the defendant is liable to compensate the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as the owner of the defendant vehicle.

B. The limitation of liability for damages: (a) the following circumstances recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statement and arguments stated in the evidence No. 7-1 to 10, namely, the accident of this case, which entered the intersection even though the vehicle signal of the front side is low, also the negligence of the above E, which entered the intersection where the vehicle signal of the front side is changed to yellow, concurrently occurred; (b) the negligence of the above D, which is the plaintiff's husband, should be considered as the negligence on the part of the victim; and (c) the plaintiff who was on board the front line, who was on board, shall be considered as the child at the time of the accident of this case.