1. The Defendant’s KRW 124,129,806 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from August 30, 2018 to February 18, 2021.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) On August 30, 2018, C driven a D cab vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 23:05, and went directly to the entrance of the apartment complex near the opposite lane at the 65-distance, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, Sinpo-si, in order to enter the entrance of the apartment complex near the opposite lane, the Plaintiff’s driver’s E-to-be, who proceeded directly to the opposite direction at the right-hand left-hand left-hand turn (hereinafter “the instant accident”). (2) due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff sustained open injuries, such as the cutting of the frame and floor, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the upper part, the upper part, the upper part, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, the bend, and the bend and the wound.

3) The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for Defendant vehicle.

【Ground of recognition】 The facts without dispute as to Gap, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 6 through 12, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the plaintiff sustained an injury due to the operation of the defendant vehicle, barring special circumstances, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as the mutual aid business operator of the defendant vehicle.

(c)

The Defendant asserts that the Defendant’s fault should be taken into account in calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant would compensate for because the Plaintiff failed to wear a safety cap. However, the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone that the Plaintiff did not wear a safety cap.

Since it is insufficient to view this part of the defendant's argument is rejected.

However, the Plaintiff did not point the headlight at night and violated the designated lane to the left-hand left-hand turn in the non-protective zone and did not look well at the surrounding vehicles in the non-protective zone, and the Plaintiff’s error is due to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages.