1. Of the judgment of the first instance court, KRW 10,06,200 against the Plaintiff regarding the Defendant and its related thereto, from November 14, 2013 to September 4, 2015.

1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, they are cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred concurrently with the negligence of violation of the duty of front-time watching by the driver of the vehicle with the wind atom and the negligence of violation of the duty of front-time watching by the driver of the rocketing taxi, and the duty of limited speeding by the driver of E. Thus, since the station of the rocketing taxi in this case caused the death of the victim C, it is reasonable to deem that the ratio of fault in E is more than 80% in the occurrence of the accident in this case. Accordingly, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 147,936,00 (=184,920,000 x 00 x 0.00 x 0.8) out of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff according to the ratio of negligence of E. Thus, the defendant has the obligation to pay the difference to the plaintiff as compensation amounting to 102,526,200 won (=147,936,000 won and damages for delay).

B. On the other hand, the Defendant asserts that, in light of the road conditions at the location of the instant accident and the developments leading up to the instant accident, E could not easily discover the victim who is travelling on the road. The instant accident occurred mainly by negligence, and the ratio of E’s negligence is 25% as determined by the Compensation Dispute Mediation Committee, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the instant claim.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings, as a result of the verification of each black stuffed video (Evidence No. 12, Evidence No. 2) by the court of the trial of the trial of the party in question, i.e., the instant accident arising from the shocking of the victim by A, and ii) as one which led to the shocking of the victim by A, to prevent any further accident.