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

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer of Nonparty A’s B-owned vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the Defendant is the insurer of the vehicle C (hereinafter “Defendant”).

B. On January 24, 2016, around 10:25, at the three-lanes of the fourth-line road located in the Taedong-dong, Daejeon Taedong-gu, Daejeon, the accident of the collision between the front gate and the front gate part of the Plaintiff vehicle and the front gate part and the left part of the Defendant vehicle.

(c) At the time, the roads were iced by snow.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7 (including branch numbers in case of additional number), Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In light of the Plaintiff’s assertion-based photographs, etc., the collision between the front gateer of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front gateer and the side door of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s vehicle intended to change the vehicle from the second to the third lane of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the Defendant’s vehicle did not yield. As such, the Plaintiff’s vehicle: (a) the fault ratio of the Defendant’s vehicle is appropriate; (b) the Daejeon District Court, Daejeon District Court 2016Da32306, which filed a lawsuit claiming the Plaintiff to assume the responsibility, became final and conclusive, compulsory execution against the part exceeding the Plaintiff’s liability ratio is unreasonable.

B. As recognized earlier, in light of the following facts: fences front of the steering head of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, even the front door and the left-hand side of the Defendant’s front-hand side (not the front-hand part) conflict, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driving in the two-lanes are cut off in a three-lane without securing a sufficient safety distance.

Since the accident appears to have occurred on the third lane, the accident in this case is judged to have occurred by the whole negligence of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant driver was negligent is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case.