1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with G and E Private Taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is the owner of F vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 17:49 on May 4, 2017, G: (a) while stopping the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the Jeju taxi platform at the port of port, G opened a driver’s seat to get off the Plaintiff’s vehicle; (b) the Defendant’s vehicle driving following the vehicle and the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat at the port of port; (c) there was an accident that conflicts between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 4, or the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The accident of this case by the plaintiff is caused by the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle and the negligence of the defendant who neglected to open the door, despite the possibility that the vehicle parked in the driver's vehicle might open the door.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s obligation to be borne by the Defendant due to the instant accident is KRW 627,218, and KRW 402,20,000, which is equivalent to the percentage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s fault (80%) from KRW 1,029,418, including the repair cost of the Defendant’s vehicle and KRW 402,20 during the repair period.

B. The instant accident occurred by the Defendant without confirming the progress of the Defendant’s vehicle, and the Defendant could not at all anticipate it.

Therefore, the accident of this case is caused by the total negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

3. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments and evidence revealed earlier, the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was fully aware of stopping on the front right line of the road while driving the Defendant vehicle on the front right line of the road, and that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a taxi and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a DNA taxi platform with a large number of passengers who caused the stopping location. The instant accident is the instant vehicle.