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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to a private taxi vehicle B driving (hereinafter referred to as “fluence vehicle”).

B. B, around 23:00 on July 25, 2014, driven a temporary sea-going vehicle and proceeded bypassing the road front of the E Hospital located in the Busan East-gu, Busan to the front bank of the E Hospital from the intersection to the front bank of the E Hospital.

At the time, the width of the road was narrow, and there was a duty of care to temporarily stop and protect pedestrians, if there was a pedestrian by reducing the speed and by properly examining the right and the right of the road.

Nevertheless, B neglected to do so and proceeded to the left side of the running direction of the melting Vehicle, and she shocked the Plaintiff into the front part of the melting Vehicle. The part of the Plaintiff’s engine’s engine, which is the front part of the melting Vehicle, was divided into the front part of the melting Vehicle, and suffered injury, such as the 5th part of the harming Vehicle’s upper part of the melting Vehicle, and the 5th part of the harming the Plaintiff’s right side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

Meanwhile, from November 21, 2014 to July 20, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 7,372,700 to E Hospital, etc. as medical expenses of the Plaintiff.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number in the case of provisional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages incurred by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the household.

B. However, in light of the circumstances surrounding the accident in this case and the situation of the place of the accident in this case, the plaintiff was negligent in neglecting this due to the act of unfairly crossing the accident at night even though he should pay attention to prevent the accident at the time of the accident in this case, and such negligence of the plaintiff was caused by the occurrence of the accident in this case.