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

The occurrence of liability

A. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 7, and 13 and the arguments, while driving a Estynael (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle") owned by the defendant's mutual aid around 12:05 on August 14, 2014, and driving the Estyna taxi (hereinafter "Defendant vehicle") in front of the right side of the plaintiff Gap's IEba (hereinafter "Plaintiff Oba"), which was affiliated with the defendant's mutual aid at around 12:05, and making the left-hand turn from the G in the state of yellow signal from H apartment to Hancheon-ro, Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Nowon-gu, the defendant is liable to compensate the above plaintiff's accident (hereinafter "the plaintiff's accident of this case"), which caused damage to the plaintiff's above plaintiff and the above Habaol due to the accident of this case.

B. The plaintiffs asserts that since the plaintiffs' negligence 20% in the occurrence of the instant accident, the defendant is responsible for compensating for the amount equivalent to 80% of the damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the instant accident.

The following circumstances are revealed by adding Gap evidence Nos. 5 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 to the facts of the recognition in front, together with the overall purport of the statements and arguments Nos. 3 (including the black images at the time of the accident submitted by the plaintiff to the court of first instance on October 18, 2017). i.e., the plaintiff A entered the intersection despite the fact that the plaintiff was already red signal prior to the cross-section, i.e., the plaintiff A entered the intersection despite the fact that the cross-section had already been changed to yellow signal prior to the cross-section, ii) the plaintiff entered the intersection, despite the fact that the cross-section had already been changed to the yellow signal prior to the cross-section, and it seems to have been somewhat accelerated for the rapid passage of the already entered intersection. iii) If D is going to go to the left-hand side and it did not conflict with the plaintiff Oba.