A. At around 00:50 on Aug. 4, 2009, C driving a D car (hereinafter “Defendant 1”), and driving a pande distance in the fluoral-dong of Daegu Suwon-gu into the hives of the head office of the Daegu Bank, and violated the safety driving duty and changed the lane on the same side and caused the Plaintiff to suffer from the injury of the hived salt, etc. due to its shock, etc., while driving the pande distance from the hives of the head office of the Daegu-gu Bank to the hives of another vehicle.

(2) On January 9, 2010, on January 12:10, 2010, the F used for G business (hereinafter “Defendant 2”) driven a G-based car, and driven the front route of the General Welfare Center located in the Sungdong-gu, Seogu, Seogu, Daegu, into the two-lanes of the two parks and the two-lanes of the two-lanes in the Sungdong-gu, the Plaintiff was negligent in violating the duty of Jeonju City City on the two-lanes, and thereby, caused the Plaintiff to suffer injury, such as Y-si (hereinafter “the second accident”).

Defendant B is the owner of Defendant 1 vehicle, the insurer who entered into an automobile liability insurance contract regarding Defendant 1 vehicle, and the Defendant New Transport Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant New Transport”) is the owner of Defendant 2 vehicle and the user of F.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and 3-1, 3, 4, 7-1, 2, 8, and 9-1, 9-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the fact that the above recognition is based on the liability for damages, Defendant B is an operator of Defendant 1 vehicle, and Defendant ELA is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B as an insurer of Defendant 1 vehicle (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53754 Decided October 28, 2010) (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da53754 Decided October 28, 201), the damage suffered by the Plaintiff due to the first accident within the liability insurance coverage, and