1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On June 27, 2013, B: (a) the city bus C around 09:00 on June 27, 2013 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

) While driving the vehicle and driving the vehicle in Geumcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government along the two-lanes of the two-lane road from the front side of the road of the horse shooting distance, the Plaintiff was running the vehicle in the form of walking the Defendant vehicle in the form of facing the Defendant vehicle from the right side of the running direction of the vehicle in the form of cleaning the water. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s mass production was shocked in the front side of the Defendant vehicle to the right side of the vehicle, and there was an accident that the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as mination of the upper side of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

(2) The Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, or the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the occurrence of liability and the recognition of the above limitation, since the defendant's driver was negligent in neglecting the duty of care to properly operate the operation of the operation and steering gear, the defendant, who is a mutual aid business, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

However, according to the overall purport of Eul evidence No. 5's video and oral argument, at the time of the accident, the defendant was in a direct operation according to two-lanes, and the plaintiff was in a form that hangs down from the right side of the defendant's running direction to the right side of the defendant's running direction to the defendant's driving direction at almost close to the defendant's vehicle, and the time required for the plaintiff to occupy the roadway from India to India was merely 1-2 seconds. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, the plaintiff was found to have been negligent by walking along the roadway without walking along the roadway, and the plaintiff's error caused damage by the accident of this case.