A. 1) B, on September 30, 2014, around 23:21, 2014, the C-si owned by Taejin Transportation (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

(2) The road of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “instant road”) in Seoan-gu, Seoan-gu, Seoan-si.

2) On the other hand, the Plaintiff was crossing the pedestrian signal (i.e., pedestrian signal, etc. in the state of red signal) on the crosswalks, such as the signal, etc. of the instant road without permission. B, without carefully viewing the front, finds the Plaintiff unauthorized crossing as above by negligence while driving the instant taxi, and then finds the Plaintiff as the front part of the instant taxi (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff’s injury, such as the internal side scarcity, the internal side scarke, and the sake of the sacratum sacratum, etc. (hereinafter “the instant injury”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity which has entered into a mutual aid agreement for automobile accident compensation with respect to the instant taxi.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 2, 3, 4, Eul 2 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

B. A liability recognition B neglected his duty to drive in a deep sense as to the front, which led to the instant accident.

The Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business entity for the instant taxi.

C. As seen earlier, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff was at fault crossing the road without permission at night, and such negligence is obviously the cause of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.

Therefore, the defendant's liability should be restricted.

The problem is the limitation of liability ratio.

The defendant asserts that the responsibility of the plaintiff is not less than 70%.

However, the instant road where the instant accident occurred is the first line road, i.e., the round-up second line road.

In this way.