At around 03:40 on April 13, 2019, the Defendant continued to turn to E (A) the front intersection of Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government C from D to E (A).

In such cases, a person engaged in driving service has a duty of care to safely operate the steering gear and brake system by properly operating the steering gear and steering system.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and neglected to turn to the left as is, thereby, received the victim F (25 years old) who knee in front of the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle in front of the front side of the vehicle.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered injury to the victim, such as fluoral salt, tension, etc., for about two weeks of medical treatment by occupational negligence as above.

argument and Judgment

1. The place where the allegation occurred was kept in the new wall time, and the victim was kneeeling on the crosswalk, so the victim could not be seen.

Therefore, the breach of duty of care cannot be recognized.

2. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence duly adopted and examined by this court, namely, the Defendant asserted from the investigative agency to the effect that all street lamps were left at the time of the accident and the victim did not appear at all, but there is no evidence to be examined as to whether the Defendant could have discovered the victim before the accident if the Defendant fulfilled his/her duty of care in light of the location, attitude, streetlight, etc. of the victim. The Defendant asserted in this court that, at the time of the accident, the vehicle of the victim’s family in the left-hand side of the crosswalk was a situation where it is difficult to discover the victim due to the illegal alcohol of the victim’s family in the crosswalk, and the vehicle of the victim’s punishment at the left-hand side of the crosswalk is parked at the investigative agency in the direction of left-hand