1. The plaintiff's liability for damages against the defendant does not exist in relation to the accident stated in the attached Form.

Basic Facts

B, around 17:38 on August 4, 2016, driving C-si (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff-si”) and driving a second line in front of the shooting distance in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, with the right-hand signal from the front line to the front line, the left-hand side of the Defendant’s D-car, who tried to drive a U-turn at the second lane in the front line, was shocked to the front line to the front line of the Plaintiff-si, thereby causing injury to the Defendant, such as fluoral coordinate, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff taxi.

From September 8, 2016 to January 17, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,721,560 to the Defendant’s medical expenses incurred from the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff's assertion of the parties to the judgment as to the grounds for claim of Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, and 7 or the whole pleadings is caused by the defendant's total negligence. Thus, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay damages to the defendant with respect to the accident of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of unjust enrichment equivalent to the expenses for the payment of the compensation for the damages, and the damages for delay.

The defendant's assertion that the accident of this case occurred by the negligence of B.

The Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the amount equivalent to KRW 1.2 million for insurance proceeds equivalent to class 12 of injury, medical expenses equivalent to KRW 1.2 million for a month, KRW 2,188,393 for a month, and KRW 3 million for consolation money.

Judgment

According to the above facts of recognition that the damage compensation liability occurred, since B did not perform the duty of prior settlement and caused the accident of this case, the plaintiff is obligated to compensate the defendant for the damage caused by the accident of this case.

However, the defendant's change of the fleet from the two lanes to the one lane is the main cause of the accident of this case, and in light of the circumstances of the accident of this case, etc.