1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the following order of payment shall be revoked.

1. At around 20:55 on July 30, 2016, F, while driving a G rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and driving a two-lane road in front of the I in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government H from the shooting distance of the new road plaza to the shooting distance of the new road station oil station at a speed of about 50km, F, while driving the road without permission on the right side from the direction of the Defendant vehicle to the left side.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). The J died due to the instant accident.

(hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”). The plaintiff A is the deceased’s wife, and the plaintiff B, C, and D are the children of the deceased, and the defendant is the mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant’s vehicle.

[Based on the fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 13, 16, 26, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 8 (including the provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and according to the fact that the purport of the whole pleadings is recognized, the defendant is liable as a mutual aid project operator of defendant vehicle for the damage suffered by the deceased and his bereaved family members due to the accident in this case.

According to the evidence as seen earlier, the deceased was negligent in crossing the road without permission on the road which has a limited view at night, and such negligence was a considerable cause for the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, and thus, it should be taken into account.

On the other hand, the responsibility of the deceased should be mitigated because the accident site of this case is not only a residential congested area where ordinary crossings frequently occur, but also a facility to block pedestrian crossings. On the other hand, prior to the occurrence of the accident, the negligence that the defendant vehicle neglected the duty of front-time care, and the negligence that the defendant vehicle changed the course of the vehicle at the intersection and crosswalk corresponding to the exclusion section of change of course under the attached Table of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act.