1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

On September 19, 2010, around 07:08, C gas stations located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government B.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. F, around 07:08 on September 18, 2010, while driving D Cargo Vehicles, driven a road front of the Cowned Oil Station located in Yangcheon-gu Seoul, Yangcheon-gu (hereinafter “instant accident”). Around 07:08, F concealed the rear part of the Defendant’s E-Motor Vehicle, which was stopping in the atmosphere of the aforementioned signal (hereinafter “instant accident”). Accordingly, the Defendant suffered injury, such as salt, dye, tension, etc. of the bones of trees, which requires six weeks’ treatment.

B. The Plaintiff is a motor vehicle mutual aid business operator who entered into the instant mutual aid agreement with the Geumcheon-ro Corporation, Inc., the owner of the foregoing cargo vehicle.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap's statements, Gap's evidence 1 through 5, 7, 8, Eul's evidence 3 (including each number), the video, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of recognition as above, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that F was negligent in neglecting the duty of Jeonju, and thus, the plaintiff who entered into a mutual aid agreement on the above cargo vehicle is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the defendant due to the accident of this case.

B. The scope of the Defendant’s damages as to the scope of the damages is the same as the statement of the calculation of damages in the attached sheet of the amount of damages, except as otherwise stated below (in accordance with the headmanial calculation method that deducts interim interest at the rate of 5/12 per month, less than a month for the convenience of calculation, less than a month for the convenience of calculation, and less than a won). It shall be rejected that the Defendant’s claims are not separately explained.

Personal information 1) Personal data: The rate of loss of labor ability during the period of hospitalization from September 18, 2010 to January 17, 2011 is recognized as 60.92% based on the physical assessment result (this objection is argued that the defendant's rate of loss of labor ability during the period of hospitalization should be 10% which did not consider the degree of contribution of the king, and thus, the accident should be considered as 10%.