1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of C-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff taxi”), and the Defendant is the owner of D-si (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

B. At around 11:00 on May 4, 2018, the Plaintiff-affiliated E driven the Plaintiff taxi and moved back the G intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) located in the Kimpo-si F from G to the direction of entrance of a boat or horse from G to the direction of the G, and, according to the course signal of the said intersection, the Plaintiff-affiliated met the front part of the Defendant bus’s right-hand part of the front part of the Defendant bus’s bus, which was directly located in the direction of the entrance of a boat or horse in the direction of the entrance of the arm’s length, following the left side of the Plaintiff taxi.

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

The Plaintiff paid KRW 9,756,063 for the repair cost of Plaintiff taxi due to the instant accident, and incurred loss of KRW 1,920,012 for 12 days during the repair period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 11, Eul evidence 1 to 14 (including each number, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s Ha, while driving the Defendant bus and passing through the instant intersection, neglected to perform the duty of e-mail and completed bypassing the Defendant taxi, the instant accident was caused by the concurrence between the negligence of E and H.

Therefore, the Defendant’s total damages 11,676,075 won (i.e., repair cost of KRW 9,756,063, 1,920,012) incurred by the Plaintiff from the instant accident (=5,838,037 won (=11,676,075 won ¡À2,075 won) equivalent to 50% of H’s negligence

[] The obligor is obligated to pay any and any damages for delay.

B. The instant accident occurred due to the E’s total negligence in violation of the bypass provision in the instant intersection, and even if the Defendant’s negligence was found, the causal relationship between H’s negligence and the instant accident is not acknowledged, since H’s negligence was in a situation in which H was unable to avoid this, and the repair cost of Plaintiff taxi is not the repair cost.