1. Of the part against the plaintiff in the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 1, 201, D operated a e-si on a 22:07 day, and made a left-hand turn to the left-hand turn in excess of the 65 km speed per hour in violation of the said intersection signal while waiting for the signal at the crosswalk at the stop line in front of the Geum-gu Office located in the Geum-gu Office in Busan. As a result, D’s operation of the e-si at a speed of 65 km per hour by driving the e-stop and driving of the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant accident”).

As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered from an injury, such as an external wound, to which the number of days of treatment can not be known, and the Plaintiff F was killed due to brain injury while receiving treatment.

B. D was prosecuted by Busan District Court 2012Kadan1991 due to the violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents in relation to the instant accident, and was sentenced to a judgment of two years of suspended execution on June 20, 2012, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Defendant is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the above taxi owner who is the owner of the above taxi driven by D using the above taxi as an insurable vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Eul-3 evidence, purport of all pleadings]

2. According to the fact that the defendant's liability for damages was created and the limitation of liability was recognized, the defendant is liable to compensate for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident in this case.

However, in addition to the fact that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the plaintiff, who is a driver of Ortoba, in addition to the violation of D's signal, and according to the overall purport of Eul evidence 2-3 and all pleadings, it can be recognized that the plaintiff did not have obtained a license at the time of the accident in this case, did not wear safety caps, and did so so. Thus, the accident in this case becomes a factor to expand the plaintiff's damage caused by the accident in this case.