1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with a person holding a license for private taxi transportation business in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its members, and is conducting business to provide compensation for losses caused by the accident of the member of the regular conference.

B. The Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor is the Plaintiff’s member as the owner of the Plaintiff’s private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

C. The Defendant is an insurer which has concluded a comprehensive insurance contract with respect to DOba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) owned by C. D.

At around 14:00 on April 1, 2016, Defendant Oraba, along the three-lanes in front of the Seoul Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, along the direction of the military station on the front of the children's park, parked over the two-lanes and three-lanes, and thereafter, Defendant Oraba stopped on the front part of the Plaintiff's vehicle in which the passengers opened a door and embarked on the left-hand hand of the Defendant Orababa.

(hereinafter “instant accident”) e.

On April 21, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 617,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the unilateral negligence of defendant Oral Ba, which occurred in an unreasonable way to the right side of the plaintiff's vehicle which was stopped to allow passengers to board.

In regard to this, the defendant did not add the accident of this case to the defendant Oral Ba and the right side side of the three-lanes, and at the middle between the two-lanes and the three-lanes, the negligence of the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor who stopped the plaintiff's vehicle rhythly, and the negligence ratio of the plaintiff's supplementary intervenor is equivalent to 20%.

B. The following circumstances, which can be recognized based on the foregoing facts admitted and the evidence as seen earlier, are three-lanes of the Plaintiff’s Intervenor at the time of the instant accident.