1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around 11:30 on February 24, 2005, B taxi (hereinafter “instant taxi”).

(ii) An accident that the Plaintiff, who was on board the airport bus in order to depart from Indonesia, was faced with the rate inputs, etc. inside the airport bus, when the airport bus, which was operated as a model apartment room on the 63 side of the 63rd building in the wind where the central line was pushed down from the model apartment distance of inn-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan City (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”). The Plaintiff, who was on board the airport bus to depart from Indonesia, was faced with a charge inputs, etc. inside the airport bus (hereinafter referred to as the “instant accident”).

(2) The Plaintiff suffered injury due to the instant accident. The Plaintiff received treatment from C Council members, Indonesia local hospitals, women’s mother hospitals, etc., and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay 3,527,730 won in total (2,972,730 won in transportation expenses, and 55,00 won in transportation expenses). Thus, the Defendant, a mutual aid business entity which entered into a car mutual aid agreement with the instant taxi, is obligated to pay 3,527,730 won in total and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant’s claim for damages expired by the expiration of the three-year statute of limitations, and the amount of medical expenses claimed by the Plaintiff is excessive.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements and images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 5 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 2 (including branch numbers), the plaintiff suffered medical treatment by suffering from injury in the accident of this case, and the defendant is recognized as being a mutual aid implementer who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract with the taxi of this case, but the lawsuit of this case of this case is deemed to have been a claim for damages under the Civil Act, if the plaintiff's cause of claim of this case for three years, the extinctive prescription period from February 24, 2005, which is the date of the accident of this case, is applied in accordance with Article 766(1) of the Civil Act.