A. As to the accident involving the death of taxi passengers due to the collision between dump truck and taxi that entered into the intersection of the gist of the claim, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff concluded a mutual aid agreement with respect to the taxi and paid compensation to the deceased’s heir at least 70% of the negligence ratio of the dump truck, and sought a claim for reimbursement equivalent to the percentage thereof against the Defendant who concluded the insurance contract with respect to the dump truck, the Defendant asserts that the negligence ratio of the dump truck is less than 10%.

B. The main issue is to identify the validity of the Defendant’s respective arguments in detail and from the perspective of comparative balancing, which is the key issue, where the other party shows a large gap by asserting that the other party was more at fault despite sharing the main factor of the negligence, i.e., the instant signal violation.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The parties concerned are mutual aid business operators who concluded an automobile damage insurance contract with the non-party Mump Transport Co., Ltd. on the non-party Asi owned by the non-party Mump Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “the instant taxi”). The defendant is a non-life insurance company that concluded automobile damage insurance contract with respect to B dump trucks (hereinafter “the instant truck”).

나. 이 사건 사고지점인 교차로와 신호체계 ＃ 1 : 이 사건 택시 ＃ 2: 이 사건 트럭 이 사건 사고지점은 인천 중구 C에 있는 D주유소 앞 남항부두 사거리라고 불리는 교차로(이하 ‘이 사건 교차로’라 한다)이다.

In light of the signal system installed at the intersection, it is repeated in the order of stop signal to turn to the right turn of the straight signal at the same direction and in the opposite direction of the instant taxi, and in the proceeding direction of the instant truck, it is just a stop signal in the direction of the instant taxi, and the direct promotion signal in the proceeding direction of the instant truck is included.

C. The instant traffic accident according to time flow.