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

A. On March 11, 201, Nonparty B driven a C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) on March 15, 201, and proceeded along one lane between the two-lanes from the cambspon of the cambspon, using a two-lane radius from the cambspon of the cambspon. In the same direction, Nonparty B driven a D cambspon (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and proceeded along two-lanes.

B. The Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle were in the vicinity of the entrance intersection of the SK Energy Factory, and there was a conflict between the left-hand side of the Plaintiff vehicle and the Defendant vehicle’s front-hand loaded part, which led to the collision between the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the front-hand loaded part of the Defendant vehicle. As a result, the Plaintiff suffered injury, such as a uupuplet and a sup

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The defendant is an insurer who has agreed to compensate for human and physical damage caused during the operation of the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2-1 and 2-2, the result of this court's commission to the head of the Ulsan Southern Police Station for delivery of documents, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the accident of this case, since the accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's failure to confirm the surroundings.

In regard to this, the defendant's vehicle was in normal driving according to the first lane, and the plaintiff, as the driver of the latter vehicle, should have changed the lane by properly examining the progress of the defendant vehicle, but the accident of this case was only caused by unilateral negligence, which has changed the lane from the second lane to the first lane, and thus, the defendant is not liable.

B. In light of the judgment, there is no evidence to prove that the accident in this case occurred due to negligence, which was caused by the driver of the Defendant vehicle, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the foregoing evidence, are ① Defendant.