A. The facts of recognition 1) C is a D-si vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 07:20 on February 17, 2017.

) A driver of Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, while driving a vehicle, the Plaintiff, who dried the crosswalk on the pedestrian green signal, was shocked to the front driver of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”) while driving the two-lanes of the two-lanes at the front Tri-distance Intersection, from the front side of the Fri-distance to the left left (non-protective left-hand turn).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the strike on the left-hand sloping part, the left-hand sloping part, the upper-hand shot, and the shot, shot, and shot, thereby suffering from the injury of the Plaintiff.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant's vehicle. 【Ground of recognition】 the fact that there is no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 through 5, and 8 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Defendant asserts that, in calculating the amount of damages to be compensated by the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s error should be considered in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate, since the instant accident site is a non-protective area where left-hand turn is permitted, the Plaintiff is erroneous in failing to sufficiently examine surrounding circumstances despite having to safely cross the vehicle traffic, etc.

However, in light of the time of the instant accident, the place of the accident, the circumstances of the accident, etc., the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone cannot be deemed as having committed any error to the Plaintiff who was walking on a crosswalk, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Accordingly, the Defendant’s assertion on this part is rejected.

2. The following shall be stated separately below the scope of the liability for damages.