1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with a person holding a license for private taxi transportation business in Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and is engaged in compensating for losses in accordance with the provisions and terms and conditions of the commercial conference in cases where a member of the commercial conference causes damage to a member’s vehicle due to an accident during the period of ownership, use, and management

B. B is the owner of a private taxi of C (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Plaintiff’s partner is the Plaintiff’s member.

C. At around 04:07 on May 16, 2015, B, while driving at a speed exceeding 95km/h speed at a speed exceeding 60km/h at a speed exceeding 60km/h, the Defendant, who unauthorizedly crossed from the left side of the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was shocked into the front part of the driver’s seat of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and refrated the roadside trees and fire hydrants going to India.

C. The Defendant was issued a summary order of KRW 1 million on July 30, 2015 due to a violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, which was sentenced to a fine of KRW 1 million.

(Seoul Southern District Court 2015 High Court 9376). D.

Meanwhile, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle was scrapped due to the instant accident, the Plaintiff paid KRW 6,517,00 to B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2 evidence, Gap 5 through 11, Gap 13, 14 evidence, Eul 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant’s fault at night and the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle conflict with that of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Defendant is liable for damages equivalent to 60% of the Defendant’s fault ratio out of the amount of damages incurred to the Plaintiff’s driver B.

Therefore, the defendant vicariously exercises the right to claim compensation of B.