Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. At around 09:50 on July 2, 2017, D driven a private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driven the five-lanes of the 1805-do 1805-lane 5-lane 4 from the opposite four-lane 5-lane 4 to the two four-lane 5-lane 444, and stopped near the front of the F Hospital, and the driver’s seat was opened at the front of the F Hospital, and at that time, the Plaintiff, who was getting a bicycle on the left side of the left side of the Defendant vehicle, fell against the said driver’s seat (hereinafter “the instant accident”).

2) The Plaintiff suffered serious injury due to the instant accident, such as the instant accident’s surgery of external wounds, the surgery of external wounds, the surgery of the two organs, and the closure of the two organs, etc., and thereafter, the Plaintiff suffered serious injury due to the instant accident, which occurred around November 7, 2017 during the treatment process.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 11 and 14 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the accident of this case occurred by negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant vehicle without checking the safety of the vehicle. Thus, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle, unless there are special circumstances.

2) However, considering the following circumstances, which can be recognized by the evidence No. 3-1 and No. 3-2 of the above facts and the evidence No. 3-12 of the above facts, i.e., the plaintiff, as the plaintiff, neglected his duty of care to operate the bicycle while paying attention to the possibility of opening the door of the defendant's vehicle because the defendant's vehicle was parked in the five-lane; and ii) the plaintiff did not wear the safety cap at the time of the accident and was under drinking, it is reasonable to view the plaintiff's negligence ratio contributed to the occurrence of the accident and the expansion of damage of the accident in this case to the extent that the plaintiff's negligence ratio