1. The part against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part is revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a person who installs and manages the traffic signal apparatus installed in the new village distance intersection 94 in Mapo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

B. On October 16, 2016, the Plaintiff’s vehicle had a green signal around 19:48, and there was an accident that conflicts with D motor vehicles running the instant intersection in accordance with green signals (hereinafter “road accident”) from the ebbridges to the ebbridges from the ebridges to the ebbridges of the instant intersection from the ebridges.g., the Plaintiff’s access to the instant intersection (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

C. At the time of the instant accident, there was a breakdown in which the red signal and green signal are rapidly shifted from the traffic signal apparatus in the direction of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant signal apparatus”) even though the direction signal of the other vehicle was green signal, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the instant intersection in accordance with the aforementioned green signal, and was in conflict with the other vehicle.

On June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 2,521,00 as repair cost to a maintenance business operator who repaired the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries or images of Gap evidence 1 through 8, 12 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties' assertion 1) The accident of this case occurred because the Defendant, who is the installer and manager of the signal apparatus of this case, did not take any safety measures without neglecting the operation of the signal apparatus of this case. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the mutual aid amount of KRW 2,521,000 paid by the Plaintiff at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the delay damages therefor. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant fulfilled the duty to take protective measures required by social norms for the signal apparatus of this case.