A. The facts of recognition 1) C are D cab around September 25, 2015 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). D cab around 17:21, 2015

(3) Around the F Hospital located in Nowon-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the passenger stopped on the front of the F Hospital, and the Plaintiff, who was going to the edge of the road, on board G Otoba while opening the front door, was faced with the telecommunication pole (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as suskes, etc.

3) The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant's vehicle. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, Eul evidence No. 6 (including paper numbers, the purport of the whole

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.

The defendant asserts that the accident in this case did not control speed while entering a narrow space between the defendant's vehicle and India, and occurred by the plaintiff's unilateral negligence, and thus, it is not responsible for the defendant. However, according to the evidence of the above finish, it is recognized that the plaintiff, who was driving on the right side of the defendant's vehicle, was subject to telegraph during the process of overcoming the collision between the chief gate of the defendant's vehicle and the defendant's vehicle. Thus, without considering the surrounding circumstances, there is a causal relationship between the defendant's vehicle's act of driving the door and the accident in this case.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Limitation of liability: Provided, however, when passing through the right side of the suspended vehicle, the Plaintiff is negligent in neglecting the Plaintiff’s duty of care to keep the vehicle door at the front of the stop, and such negligence is attributable to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.