The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport and purport of the appeal [the purport of the appeal]

1. Cases of prohibition of compensation between insurance for vehicles involved in a traffic accident;

A. On July 3, 2017, at the time of the accident, the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), such as the background of the accident, (i.e., the Plaintiff’s insured vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), Defendant FF bus D taxi (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”), and (ii) the bus stops on the bus stops located in the F FF department store located in Gangseo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, Seoul, and (iii) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops on the front of the FF department store located in Gangseo-gu, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, and (iv) the Plaintiff’s vehicle stops on the ticket so that the passengers are aboard. The Defendant vehicle was overtaken the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the first lane, leading the Plaintiff’s future vehicle to enter, changing its course, and immediately operated the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and owing to the impact, the Plaintiff’s vehicle suffered injury as it exceeded

There was no direct conflict between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Payment of insurance proceeds to the victim who suffered injury shall be paid in total KRW 17,146,530 by September 27, 2017.

B. The main cause of the instant accident lies in the mistake of the Defendant’s vehicle, as seen above, in a situation where the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopping at a bus stop can be immediately depart from the bus stop, and as such, it is unreasonable to overtake the Plaintiff’s vehicle, thereby changing the lane rapidly in the future.

On the other hand, while the plaintiff's vehicle starts after stopping, it did not properly look at the driving situation of the defendant's vehicle that tried to change the lane to the taxi platform installed in front of the bus stop, but did not confirm the safe boarding and landing of the passenger, and the plaintiff's error was caused by the accident in this case and the expansion of damages.

In full view of the background of the accident in this case and the contents of the negligence in both parties, it is reasonable to 35% of the negligence ratio of the Plaintiff vehicle and 65% of the negligence ratio of the Defendant vehicle.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 1 to 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

C. The defendant is obligated to compensate according to the defendant's obligation.