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

1. At around 13:05 on January 5, 2014, F changed the course of G high-speed bus from the point of 7.7km in Incheon in the direction of the Jeju Jeju Dodong Highway (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) to the three-lanes of the five-lanes of the five-lanes of the five-lanes, while driving from the Gun air rate station to the Incheon gate, and the Plaintiff’s H car (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), which was proceeding along the three-lanes of the MV car, was shocked into the front left side of the Defendant vehicle, and the vehicle was shocked into the front left side of the Defendant vehicle. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was charged with central separation.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff suffered from injury, such as pressure frame, light-scopical signboard escape certificate, acute hopical trauma, etc., due to the instant accident.

The defendant is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] In light of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 (including virtual numbers) and the basic facts as to recognition of the purport of the entire pleadings, the accident of this case is attributable to the operation of defendant vehicle, and thus, the defendant, who is a mutual aid business operator of defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case.

The Defendant asserts that the instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff, or due to the negligence of the Plaintiff, even if the Plaintiff was aware of the Defendant’s vehicle prior to the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time, prior to the change of course with the Plaintiff’s vehicle, or could have sufficiently predicted the possibility of change of course of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s failure to perform the duty of transition, etc., which led to considerable negligence in the occurrence and expansion of the instant accident.

However, all drivers of vehicles intend to change their routes.