1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,248,480 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 5, 2017 to August 30, 2017, and the following.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B-wheeled Motor Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff O2”).

The defendant is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to D Private Taxi Vehicles owned by C (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

B. On May 17, 2015, at around 17:13, 2015, C driven the Defendant’s vehicle and operated the Flaund in front of the Flaund in the Gu and Sin-si from the Gu and Sin-si in the Gu and Sin-si, with the direction direction, etc. prior to the change of the vehicle’s route, in advance of the change of the vehicle’s route, in advance of the change of the vehicle’s route, and neglected the duty of care to change the vehicle’s route, due to the negligence of changing the vehicle’s two lanes to three lanes, the front portion of the Plaintiff’s Oba, which was proceeding in the latter part of the Defendant’s vehicle back to the right side, and thereby, conflict with the vehicle where the Plaintiff Obaba was parked on the right side of the road.

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

The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as salkes and salkes, due to the instant accident.

[Reasons for Recognition] The statement No. 2, the result of the physical examination entrusted to the president of the Gyeongbuk University Hospital in this Court, the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is responsible for compensating the damage suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the defendant vehicle.

B. The limitation of liability: (a) the Plaintiff also proceeded with 85 km speed above 60 km speed per hour; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle changing course from the left-hand side was erroneous; and (c) the Plaintiff’s error contributed to the occurrence or expansion of damages caused by the instant accident; (d) it is reasonable to consider the Defendant’s calculating the amount of damages that the Defendant should compensate, but its ratio is limited to 40% as the Defendant’s liability is limited to 60% remaining.

3. Scope of compensation for damage.