The Defendant’s KRW 128,414,032 to Plaintiff A, KRW 5,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of them shall be from May 17, 2014 to August 11, 2017.

D The fact of recognition of liability for damages is driving a taxi on May 17, 2014 (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle") in the direction of the field of oriental medicine stadium distance on the front of the F company located in Seojin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Chungcheongnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City around 03:45, while driving a taxi (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

The Plaintiff’s (Gboard) Obane (hereinafter “Plaintiff Obane”) who was proceeding in the opposite direction to the same road beyond the central line was received.

(A) The above accident is the father of the Plaintiff A (No. 2-2), and the Defendant is the mutual aider who entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the Defendant’s motor vehicle.

According to the above facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

In general, the driver of a motor vehicle who operates a road with a median line along his/her own lane is not obliged to drive a motor vehicle with a duty of care expected to drive the opposite line until the opposite line enters the center line, except in extenuating circumstances.

(Supreme Court Decision 9Da19346 delivered on July 23, 199). However, in light of the fact that Plaintiff A had no driver's license to drive the Plaintiff Otoba, and that Plaintiff Otoba was stolen at the time of the instant accident (Evidence 1-5), etc., Plaintiff A appears to have been considerably well-founded in Otoba driving.

As above, the driver's operation of the plaintiff Oral Ba in the state where the plaintiff Gap was well-grounded shall also be deemed to have contributed to the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damages, so the defendant's responsibility shall be limited to 70% in consideration of such circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff A's driving of the first lane, the failure to wear a safety cap, and the excess.

However, the driver of the opposite vehicle who sets the criteria for the traffic vehicles according to the lanes in Article 16 (1) [Attachment 9] of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act shall be the driver of the opposite vehicle.