1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with a limited liability company C (hereinafter, the Plaintiff’s vehicle), and the Defendant is the owner of the E-city bus (hereinafter, the Defendant).

B. On October 18:15, 2017, Nonparty F driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and was waiting in the atmosphere while the boom boom boom boomed on the Plaintiff’s vehicle to enter the H room located in Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Gwangju, with the aim of entering the zone from the H room to the letter.

C. While the Defendant’s vehicle is running on the front side of the Defendant’s front side of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle, it conflicts with the boom boom boom of the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was driving four-lanes on the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle.

After the collision, the defendant vehicle received street trees and shocked the I charging pole and the I charging station pole.

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case". D. The following abbreviations and photographs are as follows.

The Plaintiff paid 139,566,780 won in total, such as compensation for damages, such as medical expenses for passengers aboard the Defendant vehicle, and compensation for damages for damaged LPG charging stations, street trees, etc. as shown in the attached Form.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 9 (including partial number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant driver provided the cause of expanding the instant damage by neglecting the duty of care to prevent the accident from spreading, even though he/she had a duty of care to thoroughly hold the front-round city inasmuch as the accident site is a three-distance intersection where H et al. enters the location of the accident.

It is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio of the defendant vehicle who neglected the above duty of care is at least 40%.

Therefore, the defendant is exempted from the payment of damages by the plaintiff, and the defendant bears the obligation to pay the indemnity in accordance with Article 682 of the Commercial Act.

Therefore, the defendant paid the plaintiff to the victims.