The cargo tower has been parked in the front line and the course has changed to one lane. Since the yellow solid line of two lines is installed in the center line, there was a duty of care to avoid breaking the center line.

Nevertheless, in the course of changing the course due to neglect, the part of the E- which was driven by the victim D (Nam, 20 years of age) who was directly in the direction of the proceeding due to the negligence committed by the central line while driving it in the course of changing the course was collisioned with the front front of the driver's seat of the vehicle of this case and the front of the wheels of the vehicle of this case.

As a result, the Defendant suffered, by negligence in the above business, the injury to the victim D such as salt, tensions, and tensions in the climatic tensions requiring approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim D, and to the F, salt and tensions in the climatic tensions requiring approximately two weeks of treatment to G, so that H may receive approximately two weeks of treatment to the victim, such as salt and tensions in the clifs, and tensions in the clifs requiring approximately two weeks of treatment to H, and the clifs in the clifs that require approximately two weeks of treatment to I.

2. The judgment of the defendant and the defense counsel asserted to the effect that there is no causation between the above accident and the defendant's negligence, since the victims intentionally caused the accident.

According to the summary order, the above victims can be acknowledged that the vehicle of the defendant at the time of the accident in this case was invaded by the central line and that the defendant acquired the insurance money by acquiring the vehicle of the defendant intentionally, according to the above facts of recognition.