A. Facts of recognition 1) Nonparty B is Nonparty B’s taxi around 23:50 on November 27, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

(2) On the other hand, the driver of the vehicle was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to prevent the accident at the permissible point of U.S., despite the fact that the driver of the vehicle had a duty of care to care to prevent the accident, and the driver of the vehicle was negligent in failing to perform his duty of care to prevent the accident at the permissible point of U.S. on the part of U.S., the front part of U.S. 125cc. driven by the Plaintiff at the front part of U.S. 125cc., a traffic accident in this case, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as the injury to the left part of U.S. s. s. s. on the left part of U.S. s. s. s. 2).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above recognition of liability, B, the driver of the Defendant vehicle, caused the instant traffic accident by negligence and thereby inflicted injury on the Plaintiff, thus, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff along with B as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant vehicle.

The defendant asserted that the plaintiff's entry from the side road immediately before the occurrence of the traffic accident in this case to the original one of the two-lanes, and that the defendant's vehicle should be set off immediately after finding out that the defendant's vehicle was in U.S., and it conflicts with the front part of the defendant's vehicle, but only the evidence submitted by the defendant should be set off.