1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid in addition to the following shall be revoked.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Basic facts 1) The Defendant is Mine Unemployment Co., Ltd. and B-si for business use (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) Around 14:28 on March 29, 2009, a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with respect to the vehicle. (2) A, while driving the vehicle of the Defendant and driving a long distance in the jurisdiction of Seongbuk-gu Seoul, Seongbuk-gu, Seoul, the reading center is driving in two lanes from the boundary of the university to the side of the three-lane, the left side of the vehicle in the direction of the running of the masting Defendant vehicle (on the left side of the manding west-do) and driving a three-lane crossing in accordance with the vehicle progress.

(3) The Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a wide range of power failure due to an escape from the right angle, due to the instant accident. [Grounds for recognition] The Plaintiff did not dispute, A’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, and A’s evidence Nos. 22 through 24 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply).

No. 8, each entry of evidence No. 8 and the purport of the whole pleading

B. According to the facts of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages caused by the accident in this case as a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle.

C. The defendant's claim on the limitation of liability is that, at the time, the plaintiff believed the signal only without examining whether there is a vehicle that is already entering the intersection, which is changed to the ongoing signal from the stop signal, and the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff's negligence should also be considered in calculating the amount of damages. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the accident of this case occurred at the wind starting from the off of the moving signal without examining the direction of the vehicle that is already entering the intersection, but rather, according to the above evidence, the plaintiff makes a right-hand path according to the straight signal from the three-lane road.