A. On May 31, 2012, at around 04:50, the Defendant’s employee, driving a vehicle owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”) and completing delivery services, and driving a motor vehicle at the scamh from the scam on the side of the Chamhamhamhamh (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff, who was on the instant vehicle due to the instant accident, was faced with a pedestrian signal, etc. on the right side by running a stamhamhly from the scamhamhamhamh (hereinafter “instant accident”), is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, who was the operator of the instant vehicle, for damages caused by the instant accident, since there is no dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff, who was on the instant vehicle, was recognized by the purport of each entry and pleading as stated in subparagraphs 2 and 3, and all pleadings.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s liability for the instant accident ought to be mitigated on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under a passenger with the same rank. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the Defendant’s liability for the instant accident ought to be mitigated on the ground that the Plaintiff fell under a passenger with the same rank. In light of various circumstances, such as the purpose of operation, the identity of the passenger with the same rank, the personal relationship between the passenger and the passenger, the developments leading up to his participation in the accident, and the purpose and active nature of the demand for the participation, if it is deemed unreasonable on the part of the perpetrator in view of the principle of good faith or equity, the amount of compensation may be reduced, but only on the part of the vehicle with the accident, the amount of compensation may be reduced (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 98Da53141, Feb. 9, 199). According to the purport of the entire pleadings, according to the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may provide the Defendant’s employee’s delivery assistance and convenience to the Defendant’s employee.