The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following parts used or added. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

[Supplementary or altered parts] The "business taxi" in Part 8 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added to the following "Defendant vehicle" (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle").

On the second page of the judgment of the first instance court, the "car" (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff vehicle") shall be added next to the "car" in the second page of the judgment of the second instance.

Part II, 18, 3, and 3 of the decision of the court of first instance shall be followed as follows.

However, in light of the description and image of the evidence No. 2-1 through 20, the result of the verification of the video CD by the court of the first instance, the point of occurrence of the instant accident, shock level, and the speed of each vehicle at the time of the accident, which can be known by the results of the fact inquiry by the court of the first instance with respect to the Gwangju Southern Police Station, it is deemed that the Plaintiff’s entry from the route would have first entered the intersection than the Defendant’s vehicle that entered the route. However, since the traffic control was not performed at the time, the said intersection is a place where the traffic control was not performed, the Plaintiff neglected to temporarily stop and pass through the intersection (B did not fulfill the above duty of care), and such negligence also caused the instant accident (B).

Furthermore, in full view of all the circumstances revealed in the argument of the instant case including the background leading up to the occurrence of the instant accident, it is reasonable to set the Plaintiff’s negligence as 20% on the occurrence of the said accident and limit the Defendant’s liability to 80%.

(On the other hand, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff did not wear the safety labelling at the time of the accident of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it). The "compensation calculation table" in Part 3, 9, of the first instance judgment, shall be added to "compensation calculation table".