A. On September 10, 2012, B driven a C cab that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant cab”) on or around September 10, 2012, and proceeded along one-lane from the boundary of the new bank to the boundary of the Hancheon University located in the Doma-dong, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon, along the one-lane, the left side of the Plaintiff’s Doob (hereinafter “Plaintiff Doob”), which was going into the boundary of the Ucheon-do elementary school located in the right side of the Defendant cab, was shocked on the left side of the Plaintiff Doob (hereinafter “Plaintiff Doob”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. Due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff was suffering from an injury that requires about 16 weeks of treatment, such as cutting down the opening of the left-hand light and non-alleys, diversing down on the left-hand side surface and damage to power lines, etc., and received treatment, such as the ladry, ladrying, application of external wells, and refladaling.

C. The location of the instant accident is an intersection where traffic is not controlled by signal, etc., and the width of the road is 5.9m in width as the road that is not maintained by the center line, and the road that the Defendant taxi runs is 6.8m in the middle line, and the width of the road is 6.8m in the road that is one-lane road in which the center line is located, and the Plaintiff-to-be and the Defendant-si did not reduce all speed at the time of the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 9 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 6 (including paper numbers), the result of verification of the accident video of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the road that the Plaintiff was running on is located along the central line, compared to the road that is not located along the central line, and the road that the Plaintiff was running on is narrow by 0.9m compared to the road (6.8m) on which the Defendant taxi was driving on. The width of the road where the Defendant taxi was a normal driver, if it is a normal driver.