2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement with the Plaintiff’s rocketing taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”), and the Defendant is an insurer that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the B Driner car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. Around 07:40 on November 7, 2013, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was a street, etc. on the right-hand side while driving along three lanes from the front side of the business office of Cheongsung Motor Vehicle in Yongsan-gu, Yongsan-gu, Seoul.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). C.

On January 27, 2014, the Plaintiff paid insurance proceeds of KRW 3,500,000 at the repair cost of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle try to avoid the defendant vehicle to change the two-lanes to three-lanes, which led to the negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

On the other hand, the defendant has no negligence on the part of the driver of the defendant vehicle and domestic negligence.

Even if the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent, the Plaintiff’s driver also claimed that there was considerable negligence.

3. In light of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement of evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and 6, the plaintiff's driver C stated in the police that "the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle stated that "the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle" means "the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle finds the two-lanes of vehicle, cut off the vehicle, cut the vehicle, cut the vehicle, cut the hand, cut the hand, cut the vehicle again, cut the vehicle again, cut the vehicle again, cut the two-lanes of the road, etc." The witness of the accident in this case was also pushed back in front of the plaintiff's vehicle that the defendant's vehicle was normally driven by the police, and the driver of the defendant's vehicle stated that the plaintiff's vehicle was received the street, etc., while the driver of the vehicle installed a black box on the defendant's vehicle, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle submitted the image to the police.