The accident location of this case is equipped with the center line of yellow solid lines, and at the time C was waiting to turn on the left-hand direction, etc. in order to turn to the left over the center line, D sent a signal to the right hand and sent to the left-hand turn, and E, a driver of Oralba, was mistaken for and continued to be a ongoing signal.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 9, Eul evidence 1 to 1-5, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above, the accident of this case is equipped with the center line of yellow-ray so that D is unable to turn to the left at a place where D is not able to turn to the left beyond the center line, and it is deemed that there was a conflict between the negligence that C believed D’s water signal and did not turn to the left without examining the front and rear left turn.

Thus, the defendant, as a joint tortfeasor, is jointly and severally liable to compensate the victims of the accident in this case as a joint tortfeasor, and such defendant's employer liability is not exempt from liability solely for the reasons alleged by the defendant, such as that the defendant provided D with necessary education as a signal receiver and provided with signal sealing equipment, etc.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of C, is also jointly relieved of the Defendant by paying the total amount of KRW 206,924,570, and thus, it is possible to exercise the right of reimbursement according to the ratio of the burden to the Defendant on behalf of the victims.

B. However, the argument of this case, such as the background of the occurrence of the instant accident recognized as above, is revealed.