1. The part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid under the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

(a) The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence 1 and Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers that have a serial number):

1) B is the Defendant vehicle at around 15:40 on June 26, 2012 (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant vehicle”).

ii) A person driving his/her vehicle while driving his/her vehicle at the remote distance from the Dok-dong Sacheon-do Sacheon-do Sacheon-do, and proceeding to the e-vehicle of the said D driving, and the signal apparatus of the said Sacheon-do has been changed to a stop signal, and thus the E-vehicle of the said D driving stopped the left-hand part of the said D driving vehicle due to the failure to stop his/her vehicle, and the part behind the left-hand part of the said D driving vehicle was shocked to the right-hand part of the Defendant vehicle, and the said D driving vehicle is the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter referred to as the “Plaintiff”).

A) A collision with the F Driving Vehicle was driven by the F Driving Vehicle, and the Plaintiff was accompanied by the injury, such as escape of a conical signboard, although the Plaintiff was accompanied by the steering force of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the Defendant’s vehicle.

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as an insurer.

As to this, the defendant argues that the F, who is the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, is negligent in violating the signal and the duty of pre-determination, and that the plaintiff is also negligent in violating the duty of urge for safe operation, or that the driver's negligence should be taken into account by the victim

In the absence of evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was negligent in violating the duty to urge safe operation, and the Plaintiff is the operator of the vehicle the victim was accompanied.

It is fair to regard the driver's negligence as a ground for offsetting the driver's negligence in relation to the driver's or operator's status or living relationship.