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

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to A-business taxi owned by Jin-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to B private taxi (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On June 4, 2016, around 03:30, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle: (a) in violation of the signal at a advanced monthly salary of the Defendant vehicle in front of the 99 veterans hospital in Busan Mine-gu, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, who entered the intersection (hereinafter “instant intersection”) in violation of the signal from the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle to the left side in the direction of the vehicle while driving along the intersection by using two lanes from the side of the mountain road to the front side of the 99 veterans hospital; and (b) in violation of the signal at the right side of the Plaintiff vehicle, the Defendant vehicle driven the front and rear part of the front part of the Plaintiff vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

In the instant accident, C, who was on board the back seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered injuries, such as cage cage cages and cerebral celes, etc. from August 22, 2016 to October 20, 2016, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 14,182,530, including the amount of 6,742,530, 7,000, 7,000, 7,000, and 4440,000, as the attorney fee for the relevant civil case, from August 22, 2016.

On March 6, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for deliberation on the instant accident with the non-life-insurance association dispute deliberation committee, and the said committee deliberated on and decided to the effect that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was 60% of the instant accident and the Defendant’s vehicle was negligent by 40%.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including separate numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. As long as the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident, at the time of the instant accident, was entering the instant intersection, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, as the driver of the vehicle, should have promised the course of the Plaintiff vehicle by temporarily suspending or slowly driving.