1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,001,927 as well as 5% per annum from October 2, 2014 to November 23, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid association that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with Nonparty A urban bus (hereinafter “Plaintiff bus”) owned by it, and the Defendant is a mutual aid association of Nonparty B taxi (hereinafter “Defendant taxi”).

B. On November 16, 2012, Defendant taxi stopped in the middle of one-lane and two-lanes to allow customers to board the instant taxi in front of the D stations located in Seo-gu Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon. Nonparty E opened a backlight of the driver’s seat of the said taxi and was trying to board the said taxi. Nonparty E suffered injury (7% of the loss rate of labor ability) caused by shock on the Plaintiff bus that passed the said taxi to the left-hand side.

C. The above E filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and the Defendant for compensation for damages (Seoul District Court 2013Gadan6923). In light of the negligence of 40% in the pertinent full bench, “The Plaintiff and the Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to September 30, 2014” was determined as it is, by making a decision of recommending reconciliation.

On October 1, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 40,000,000 to E according to the above decision of recommending reconciliation.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence Nos. 6 through 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of Defendant taxi driver who did not seem to have been presumed to have been able to take on the back of the driver's seat, and thus, the accident in this case has a duty to pay the full amount of damages paid by the plaintiff and the damages for delay on the ground that the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of Defendant taxi driver who did not stop the taxi on the right side of the road, and parked over a two-lane and interfered with the course of the plaintiff bus, and if the driver expressed his intention to take on board on the road.

On the other hand, the defendant is forced to have many cars illegally parked in the two-lanes of the above accident site.