A. At around 17:08 on February 12, 2017, the Defendant driven a C-A-to-purn vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and made a left-hand turn from the front of Ulsan-gu D, Ulsan-do, to the unprotected surface of the central high school, depending on the two-lanes of the two-lanes on the road in front of Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu. In such a case, the Defendant neglected his/her duty to safely enter when the vehicle in operation was in operation and drive the vehicle without the vehicle in operation, and caused the collision with the front part of the Plaintiff’s E-to-on (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in front of the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, who was directly in accordance with the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s E-to-on (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff suffered injuries, such as minctization of the executives of the unit of the instant accident, deep heats of the right-side ruptures, straws of the large ruptures, ruptures of the large ruptures, and ruptures.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. According to the facts of recognition of the above liability, the defendant constitutes "the owner and the driver of the defendant's vehicle, who operates the motor vehicle for his own sake" as provided in the main sentence of Article 3 of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and thus, the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for the damages

B. The limitation of liability: (a) the following circumstances revealed by the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, at the time of the instant case, the Defendant: (b) was a road with a relatively wide width, which is the three-lanes (five-lanes) of the direction of the Plaintiff’s proceeding; and (c) the location of the instant accident was a straight line, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle was discovered in advance to turn left to the left to the left, if the Plaintiff did not neglect the duty of the front line.