1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff A KRW 10,852,881 and KRW 5,00,000 among them.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 16, 2014, at around 23:15, Nonparty C driven D cab (hereinafter “Defendant-Defendant”) and left the alleyway that had not been driven by king-do from the king-dong-dong-dong-on from the king-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-dong-do

As a result, Plaintiff A suffered bodily injury, such as the upper half alleys on the left-hand side in need of approximately 12 weeks of treatment.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Plaintiff

B is the spouse of the plaintiff A, and the defendant is a mutual aid contractor who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6 (including branch numbers), Eul evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case.

B. Limit of liability: Provided, however, in full view of the evidence mentioned above, evidence Nos. 7 through 10, and the overall purport of the pleadings No. 2 (B), the Plaintiff may be recognized as having been negligent in operating a bicycle without turning the headlight even though he/she was negligent and at night, even though he/she was negligent in driving the bicycle in the vicinity of the intersection by driving the bicycle.

Since the negligence of Plaintiff A also contributed to the occurrence of the instant accident and the expansion of damages, the defendant's responsibility is limited to 90%.

On the other hand, the plaintiff A did not operate a bicycle at the time of the accident of this case, but found the defendant vehicle in advance and waiting to get off the bicycle.

However, the evidence No. 1, which corresponds to this, is against the plaintiff.