However, it is against the Defendants for two years from the date the judgment became final and conclusive.

1. Defendant A is a person who is engaged in driving of a D taxi.

On November 18, 2016, the Defendant driven the above taxi on November 23:15, 2016, and proceeded to the direction of “F” in the territory of Busan Seo-gu from the roat apartment.

In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely enter the intersection according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and received the front part of the G-si operated by the victim B (72 tax) who entered the intersection due to the negligence of failing to make a left turn in violation of the signal, as the front part of the Defendant’s taxi.

Ultimately, the Defendant suffered from the above occupational negligence on the part of the victim B, the injury of the victim H (the 52 years old), who was the passenger aboard the cab in the victim B, for approximately 20 weeks of medical treatment, such as the injury of the blood, etc. under the light that requires approximately 8 weeks of medical treatment, and the injury of the victim I (the 50 years old), for the same victim I (the 50-year old-old-age-old-age-old-age-old-age-age-old-age-old-age-old-age-old-age-old-age-old-age-old-

2. Defendant B is a person engaged in the duty of driving G-si.

The defendant operated the above taxi at the date, time, place, as described in paragraph 1, and continued to go from the Royal subway station to the Royal apartment.

In this case, the driver of the motor vehicle has a duty of care to safely enter the intersection according to the new code.

Nevertheless, the Defendant neglected this and went to turn to the left on the right-hand turn at the vehicle line that is facing a sudden negligence in violation of the signal, and received the part of the victim A (57) who driven by the victim A (57) in front of the taxi from the defendant.

Ultimately, the Defendant above.