2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle A (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and the Defendant is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle B (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

나. 피고 차량은 2013. 1. 7. 09:00경 남양주시 화도읍 금남리 217 삼거리 노상에서 형제샷시 방면에서 금남리 방면의 내리막길을 가다가 빙판길에 미끄러져 정지하게 되었다.

C. The Plaintiff’s vehicle also ice iced the same way as the above place and time, and ice ice iced the victim C who was conducting snow removal work after the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition] Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1 through 6, Eul evidence 3-6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments.

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case occurred in combination with the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle (a violation of duty to inform the situation of danger to the vehicle following the accident) and the negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle, and that 74,714,226 won equivalent to the negligence of the defendant vehicle (60%) paid to the victim of the accident of this case as compensation for damages, the defendant is obligated to pay the compensation amount.

B. The instant accident occurred behind the Defendant’s vehicle, which was moving down on the iceway and stopped, due to shocking the Plaintiff’s vehicle behind the Defendant’s vehicle. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to find out how the victim was carrying out snow removal work at a distance away from the Defendant’s vehicle by any method. As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not inform the Defendant’s driver of the danger of the vehicle following the vehicle at the time.

Even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at fault of the Defendant’s driver with a proximate causal relation to the instant accident that caused the Plaintiff’s shocking victim.