A. C Around 02:05 on September 27, 2016, while driving a D taxi and proceeding in the direction of the Seoul Southern District Court in the New-dong, Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government toward the Seoul Southern District Court, and in violation of the signal, C conflicts with the latter part of the FOba, driven by E, driving a first lane in violation of the signal signal while changing the vehicle from three lanes to one lane.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”) B.

Due to the accident of this case, the defendant, who was on board the above Oral Ocean together, sustained injury, such as cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral tyrosis.

C. The Plaintiff, who entered into a mutual aid agreement with C, paid the Defendant totaling KRW 26,428,620 from November 23, 2016 to January 28, 2019 as medical expenses, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Considering the circumstances and scale of the instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff, the content and degree of the Defendant’s injury, the specific content and period of the treatment conducted after the accident, the Defendant’s failure to wear a helicopter at the time of the accident, and the Defendant’s failure to do so, other than each of the above treatment costs directly paid to the Defendant’s hospital, the Defendant’s obligation to pay damages to the Defendant following the instant accident does not exceed six million won.

3. Determination

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability for damages, the Plaintiff is liable for all property and mental damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident as a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the owner of the said taxi.

B. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation within the scope of liability for damages, if the plaintiff, who is the debtor, claims to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the first claim, the defendant, the creditor, bears the burden of proof of proof

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da45259 delivered on March 13, 1998, etc.). The defendant is the defendant.