1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Of the appeal costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is the Plaintiff.

1.The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, on the entries and images of Gap evidence 1 to 10, and Eul evidence 1.

The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to B individual taxi owned by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor (hereinafter “Plaintiff taxi”), and the Defendant is an insurer that has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Oral Ba (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s Intervenor driven the Plaintiff taxi on and around 02:45, and went into an intersection where no signal, etc. is installed while driving the side road, which is located in the 36-32-dong, Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, as the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the part of the Plaintiff’s taxi that entered the front side of the road located in the right side of the Plaintiff’s taxi driving direction, are facing the collision between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s taxi (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,701,00 at the repair cost of Plaintiff taxi.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the accident in this case occurred by the driver of the defendant vehicle driving along the one-way road, and the plaintiff's assistant intervenor did not have a duty of care to drive even if there are the defendant vehicle driving in violation of the Road Traffic Act and the laws and regulations of the Road Traffic Act. Thus, the accident in this case occurred by the whole negligence of the defendant vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the defendant's fault ratio of the plaintiff's assistant driver in the accident of this case is about 30% in the accident of this case, since the plaintiff's assistant intervenor violated the duty of care as necessary while proceeding to the intersection where signal, etc. is not installed at the late night time of the accident of this case.

B. We examine the judgment, as seen earlier.