A. Fact 1) C is deemed D around November 12, 2014 (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”). D around 03:56, Nov. 12, 2014

) While driving a vehicle and making a left to the left at the right-hand plane at the right-hand e-mail of the Plaintiff’s driver, who is directly engaged in according to the vertical transition signal from the e-mail e-mail e-mail from the e-mail e-mail e-mail at the e-mail e-mail e-mail (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) The following circumstances are acknowledged in light of Gap evidence No. 5, Eul's testimony, Eul's testimony, and the parties' personal questioning of the plaintiff, and the following circumstances, i.e., the witness F testified that the plaintiff's signal at the time of the accident is a pedestrian who has a pedestrian with a crosswalk according to the cross-section signal, including the plaintiff's Otobane signal, and that the signal at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident, and some of the statements are made by the police officer even though the police officer made the above statements to the police officer, and the witness testimony of F, which is the main witness that the investigation agency concluded by the plaintiff's violation of the plaintiff's signal (the statement that the defendant's vehicle's signal is not memory in this court, but that the defendant's vehicle's signal is in violation of the defendant's vehicle's signal at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the police officer's statement.