1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

2...

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. On January 1, 2017, E driving a F bus (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) around 18:39 on January 1, 2017, and driving the front road of Jongno-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Hospital Hospital Hospital with two-lanes at the entrance intersection of the H school from the funeral site of the Seoul Metropolitan Hospital to the intersection of the entrance of the H school, while changing the lane into one lane.

At this time, the plaintiff was entering the IOba (hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff Oba") on a one-lane behind the defendant's vehicle, and the Oba in order to avoid a collision with the defendant's vehicle, and the Obaba came to go beyond the left-hand side.

(hereinafter “the instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the samaf, etc. due to the damage to the sea water.

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid contract for the defendant vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts that there is no dispute or significant fact in the court, Gap 1 through 9 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. The Defendant is liable for compensating for damages caused by the instant accident, since the Plaintiff was injured due to the recognition of liability and the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

However, it is clear in light of the empirical rule that, in a case where there is a passenger, it entails a greater risk compared to a general motor vehicle, it is difficult to handle hand signals and cope with minor obstacles, so it is easy that the accident occurs easily. Thus, the plaintiff, who is driving after the passenger L, who safely drives the vehicle following the passenger L, should prevent the danger by safely operating the vehicle in compliance with the regulatory speed and the designated lane, but attempted to change the lane and overtake the vehicle at a unreasonable speed without considering the speed and traffic flow of other vehicles. Such negligence of the plaintiff was caused by the accident of this case and the expansion of damage, the defendant's fault ratio is 40%, and the defendant's liability is the defendant's liability.