1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, evidence A of subparagraphs 1 through 3, each entry or video of subparagraphs 1 through 3 of this Article, and the purport of all pleadings);

A. The Plaintiff is a company running the taxi passenger vehicle transport business under the Passenger Transport Service Act, which is the owner of A rocketing passenger vehicle (the first new registration date, December 2012, the engine displacement of less than 2400cc, and less than hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with B low-priced vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On April 22, 2016, the driver of the Defendant vehicle driven the Defendant vehicle under the influence of alcohol by 0.176% of the blood alcohol concentration of 0.176%, and caused an accident in which the part of the part of the Defendant vehicle in front of the Defendant vehicle, which was driven by the Plaintiff vehicle in front of the Defendant vehicle, was in front of the 128 U.S. U.S. vehicle, and was in front of the 128 U.S. vehicle in the direction of the Gu in Gwangju mine (hereinafter “instant accident”). The driver of the Defendant vehicle, who was in front of the Plaintiff vehicle, was in front of the Defendant vehicle, violated the electric stop signal at the direction of the 128 U.S. vehicle in the direction of the Gu in Gwangju mine, and was in front of the Haar Hospital in front of the Plaintiff vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

C. The Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s vehicle into the repair company to repair it, and filed a claim for the total of KRW 13,224,766 (12,02,515 value-added tax of KRW 1,202,251) at the repair cost.

2. Determination

A. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, the accident in this case occurred by negligence of driving under the influence of the Defendant’s vehicle and violating signalling, the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the plaintiff vehicle entered the intersection before the signal was changed from yellow light to green light, the negligence of violating the signal signal by the plaintiff vehicle contributed to 50% of the occurrence of the accident in this case.

However, the evidence No. 2 is used.