1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the order of additional payment shall be revoked.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. With respect to A vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded each automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On December 29, 2014, around 12:51, 2012: (a) the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which is a child protection vehicle, was stopped on the front side road of Gwanak-gu in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, but was in start, and the Defendant’s vehicle tried to drive ahead of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. In that process, there was an accident in which the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front part of the

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

By January 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 850,000 insurance money under the name of the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, or the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case is an accident caused by the total negligence of the defendant vehicle due to an accident attributable to the defendant vehicle, which started after stopping on the side of the decline.

On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at least 50% due to an accident that occurred while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was parked after stopping.

According to Article 51 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, it is necessary to temporarily suspend the school bus when it is in operation, such as on-and-off displaying that the school bus stops on the road and is getting on or off children or infants, and then slowly after checking the safety.

In light of the circumstances revealed by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen above, the instant accident was not known as to whether the Plaintiff’s vehicle was on the duty of warning indicating that children or infants are getting on and off at the time of the instant accident, but if children’s protection vehicle stops in front, the said duty of care is imposed compared to other vehicles.