1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with A urban bus vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff bus”), and the Defendant is an insurance company that entered into a mutual aid agreement with B and their relatives living together as the insured.

B. At around 20:41 on May 31, 2013, C was injured by the passenger D, E, F, G, H, I, and J (hereinafter “victims”) aboard the Plaintiff bus, while driving the Plaintiff bus and driving three-lanes of the three-lane road in front of the Daelim Forest market in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, by discovering and rapiding B from India to his own vehicular road.

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

By July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 8,635,580 to the victims with medical expenses and the amount agreed.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 19 (including each number, if any), Eul evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred due to the acts of B, and the defendant is the insurer of B or his parent, who is a supervisor, and is liable for damages caused by the accident of this case.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, and 20, there are crosswalks with signal apparatus installed in the front of the instant accident site; the vehicle signal immediately before the instant accident was red; the pedestrian signal was green on-off; the pedestrian signal was in the speed of about 20km; the vehicle signal was speeded up to 29km immediately before the instant accident; the vehicle signal was speeded up to 29km; Eul was transported from the crosswalk to the roadway; and immediately thereafter, it can be acknowledged that the vehicle signal was changed to a green road and the plaintiff bus was rapidly parked; according to the above recognition facts, the accident of this case was caused by the negligence of the plaintiff bus driver who neglected his duty at the front and the crosswalk.