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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile insurance contract with a vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is a mutual aid business operator who entered into a taxi mutual aid agreement with a vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On December 9, 2016, around 1:30 on December 9, 2016, Defendant vehicles conflict with the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was bypassed to the direction of the Defendant vehicle on the road while the left-hand house was driving a road along the 78-way road near Seongdong-dong Urban Railroad Corporation in Seongdong-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

From January 3, 2017 to March 13, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,434,390 as medical expenses for the passengers of the Plaintiff vehicle, and KRW 3,267,00 as repair expenses for the Plaintiff vehicle, and paid KRW 6,701,390 in total.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, 5 through 10 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 4 video, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The plaintiff's assertion 1) although the defendant vehicle could sufficiently know the existence of the road located on the left side and entered the intersection without sufficiently examining whether there is a vehicle entering the intersection, the negligence of the defendant vehicle in relation to the accident of this case constitutes at least 40%. Therefore, the defendant, a mutual aid business entity of the defendant vehicle, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount equivalent to the fault ratio of the defendant vehicle out of the insurance proceeds paid by the plaintiff. 2) The structure of the road where the plaintiff vehicle was in progress by the defendant's assertion vehicle, the road where the defendant vehicle was in progress by the defendant's vehicle, and it is difficult to expect that the vehicle will enter the direction of the defendant vehicle and its station direction by making a sudden round on the left side. Thus, the accident of this case

B. Each description of evidence Nos. 3, 9, and 10 of the negligence ratio of the plaintiff vehicle and the defendant vehicle Gap, and the purport of the whole pleading is as to the video of evidence No. 4.