A. On October 7, 2012, B: (a) C cab around 02:20 on October 7, 2012; and (b) “Defendant vehicle”

2) The Plaintiff, a pedestrian, who is a pedestrian, driving a vehicle and driving a road at a speed of 80km per hour, driving a road at a speed of 60km along the two-lanes of speed 4-lanes from the width of the central office of ditch in the middle-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant accident”) and driving a road at a speed of 80km per hour at the speed of 60km, along the two-lanes of the width of the road in the middle-gu, and cross the crosswalk installed at the right side of the vehicle in the direction of the Defendant’s driving, was shocked into the front driver of the vehicle, resulting in the Plaintiff’s injury of blood transfusion, etc. outside the external upper part of the vehicle

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid association that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

[Ground for recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 through 3, and 6 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers); hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) The grounds of appeal No. 1

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. However, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff also committed an error of crossing a four-lane road in violation of pedestrian signal at night, and such error was caused by the occurrence or expansion of damage caused by the accident of this case, and thus, the defendant's liability is limited to 70% by taking account of this.

Although the defendant alleged that B did not reach an excessive speed, according to the statements in the Gap evidence 6-1 and 3, B, after stopping the vehicle stop signal at the intersection prior to the intersection, which is the place where the accident in this case occurred, after starting, it can be recognized that B could have been able to proceed to the vehicle straight transit signal at the intersection in this case, because it was overwork. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

2. Except as otherwise stated below within the scope of liability for damages, it shall be the same as each corresponding item in the separate list of damages calculation.