1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

Facts of recognition

The plaintiff is a non-profit corporation established with a person holding a private taxi transportation business license in Seoul Special Metropolitan City as its members, and is conducting business activities to compensate for losses caused by an accident of the member of the regular taxi transportation business.

A is an owner of a private taxi B (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff") and is a member of the Plaintiff's commercial conference.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to C Bus Vehicles (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant Vehicle").

On October 18, 2014, at around 11:10 on October 18, 2014, the Plaintiff’s vehicle proceeded with a road near the Tri-distance Central University Hospital in the direction of the Central University Hospital in the Guro University Hospital at the Guro, and the accident occurred due to the collision with the Defendant’s vehicle while the vehicle was left at the above Sam-distance Intersection.

On November 6, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 1,418,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

【Based on the following circumstances, the instant accident occurred when both the Plaintiff and the Defendant were at fault, and the fault ratio is at 70% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 30% of the Defendant’s vehicle, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the entire purport of the argument and the entire purport of the argument: (a) the instant accident occurred; and (b) the fault ratio is at 70% of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and 30% of the Defendant vehicle.

The defendant's vehicle stops at the bus stops immediately preceding the accident in a state where a part of the passenger is occupied at the time of loading the passenger at the bus stops, starting with one lane and two lanes at the same time.

While the Plaintiff’s vehicle is driving along the opposite lane beyond the median line from the Defendant’s vehicle to the opposite lane, the Defendant’s vehicle was located one lane from the opposite lane to the left side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant’s vehicle and the first lane were occupied along with the Defendant’s vehicle.

Accordingly, the plaintiff vehicle takes part of the central line with the wheels, and the defendant vehicle occupies one lane and two lanes at the same time.