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

On March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff driven a private taxi owned by the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) on March 27, 2012, the Plaintiff sought to change the course from the front side of the so-called Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul to the two-lanes on the upper side of the so-called Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, while driving the Shisan-ro, which is located in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, along the two-lanes of the Sinsan-ro, from the shooting slope of the Sinsan-si, the Plaintiff tried to change the course from 4-20 to 2-lanes on the front side of the Sinsan-dong, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul. The Defendant C-si (hereinafter “Defendant”), followed by the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) to the right side in order to avoid conjecting the Plaintiff’s vehicle and conjecting it.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). The Defendant filed a claim for damages from the instant traffic accident against Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, as Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2013 Ghana86784, and the Plaintiff participated in the instant lawsuit for Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance.

In the case of the same court 2014Na52495, the appellate court in the above lawsuit, the above court rendered a judgment on April 3, 2015 that "the traffic accident in this case occurred by the negligence of the defendant vehicle over the speed limit and speed beyond the speed limit and the negligence of the plaintiff vehicle trying to change the course without considering the traffic situation of the front and rear left, so the responsibility of the plaintiff vehicle shall be limited to 30%."

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the above appellate court, but the dismissal of the appeal was declared on July 9, 2015, and the judgment of the above appellate court became final and conclusive.

【In the absence of dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the evidence No. 1-1, No. 2, and No. 3, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of this case’s traffic accident occurred by negligence in the police investigation and previous litigation, the Defendant alleged that the Plaintiff’s negligence was 10%.