1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

The Defendant’s KRW 79,620,096 on March 17, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

1. Establishment of liability for damages;

A. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is "1. A" of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The facts of recognition are as stated in the corresponding part, except for the addition of “No. 4” in the second page No. 11 of the Civil Procedure Act after adding “No. 2” to “No. 4,” and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of

B. 1) According to the above facts, the accident in this case occurred due to negligence by the driver of a sea-going vehicle entering the intersection in violation of the signal, and thus, the defendant, a mutual aid business operator, is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case. 2) On the other hand, the driver of a vehicle driving along an intersection signal where traffic is controlled by signal, etc., is sufficient to believe that other vehicles are also engaged in driving with the belief that there are appropriate measures to comply with traffic regulations and avoid collision, and there is no duty to take special measures to prevent the occurrence of the accident in advance, even if other vehicles are anticipated to violate the signal and obstruct the course of the vehicle in this case, or to avoid collision.

However, there are other vehicles already entering the intersection even if they are drivers of vehicles driving in compliance with signal.

I found that the other vehicle is continuing to proceed by entering the intersection immediately after the signal of its direction was changed to a stop signal from the direction to the stop signal.

In special cases where it is anticipated to enter an intersection in violation of any other signal, there is a duty of care to prevent accidents and drive such vehicle with an attitude to prevent accidents by looking at the movement of such vehicle while slowly.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 93Da57520, Jun. 14, 1994; 2002Da38767, Sept. 6, 2002; 2002Da38767, Sept. 6, 2002, etc.). The evidence mentioned in the instant case can be identified by each of the above evidence.