around 14:40 on August 9, 2017, the Defendant: (a) driven the above taxi in Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government; (b) while driving the frontway, the Defendant neglected his duty of care to prevent the central line from harming; (c) neglected to do so; and (d) neglected to do so; and (d) neglected to do so; and (d) obstructed the part behind the right side of the Victim F (F) XG car in the opposite direction, while driving the central line, the Defendant got back to the front part of the taxi in front of the Defendant, and again received the victim H(41) (S) driving in front and rear the first part of the Defendant’s taxi in front of the Defendant’s taxi in front of the instant passenger.

Defendant 1 suffered from each of the above occupational negligence that caused injury to victim F, such as sprinking and salt sprinking in the vicinity of the water supply, which requires approximately two weeks of treatment, and that the victim H suffered from the sprinking sprinking of the 8 week of treatment.

2. The Defendant asserts that he was unable to drive an empty blood as he was aware of as a result of an empty blood transfusion immediately before the center line of this case was over the center line.

In this regard, the term "when a driver intrudes the median line of the road along which the lane has been installed in violation of Article 12 (3) of the Road Traffic Act" under the former part of Article 3 (2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents means that the point where the traffic accident occurred does not mean all the cases where the median line is beyond the median line, but the traffic accident occurred due to the course of the traffic accident without any justifiable reason. The term "a unavoidable reason" in this context means that the driver did not take other appropriate measures to avoid the obstacles shown on the ongoing lane, or tried to operate the lane on his own lane, but it is inevitable due to external circumstances that the driver cannot control.