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

A. With respect to A25 tons dump trucks (hereinafter “Plaintiff-vehicle”), the Defendant is the insurer who has concluded each comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B Eths Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant-vehicle”).

나. 피고 차량은 2016. 7. 17. 09:05경 동해 방면에서 삼척 방면으로 편도 3차로의 7호국도 중 2차로를 따라 진행하던 중 삼척시 우지동 갈천사거리에 이르러 3차로로 진로를 변경하여 마침 같은 방향 3차로를 진행하는 원고 차량의 앞 범퍼 부분이 피고 차량 조수석 뒤범퍼 부분을 들이받고 그 충격으로 피고 차량이 튕겨나가 반대방향 1차로를 진행하던 차량의 앞 범퍼 부분에 피고 차량 조수석 문짝 부분이 받쳐 그 충격으로 피고 차량 운전자와 상대방 차량 조수석에 타고 있는 사람이 사망하는 등 이 사건 사고가 발생하였다

(See attached Form No. 300). (c)

In relation to the instant accident, the Defendant filed a request for deliberation with the “Compensation Dispute Deliberation Committee”, and on January 19, 2016, the Deliberation Committee decided that the ratio of negligence between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle that contributed to the instant accident was 3:7.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 107,763,250 won corresponding to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the Defendant.

On the other hand, C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the instant accident was sentenced to a two-year suspended sentence on March 15, 2017 from the Gangnam Branch of the Chuncheon District Court (2016Kadan1522), which was sentenced to a one-year suspended sentence, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Ground of recognition] without any dispute, Gap evidence 1-5, Gap evidence 6-1, 2, Eul evidence 1-16, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. At the time of the instant accident, the purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant’s vehicle, at the time of the instant accident, engaged in abnormal changes in the lane from two lanes to the intersection of the accident, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was changed to a yellow signal around that time with the stop line.