A. On August 3, 2013, at around 13:53, the Plaintiff driven DOtoba (hereinafter “Plaintiff Otoba”) and proceeded with the front part of Defendant B’s E-Motor vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”), which was left left left to the left from E-car (hereinafter “Defendant”) on the front side of the Plaintiff Otobaba, the front part of the front part of the Plaintiff’s E-car (hereinafter “Defendant”), which was turned to the left to the left from E-car (hereinafter “Defendant”) in the front part of the Mabababa, U.S, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Incheon (hereinafter “instant intersection”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The defendant C is the owner of the defendant vehicle, and the defendant malicious damage insurance company is the insurer who has concluded the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 3, 4, 10 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion by the parties is that the Defendant B’s vehicle driving signal was yellow, but the vehicle driving signal was yellowly followed.

Since the accident of this case occurred, the plaintiff's negligence and defendant B's negligence conflict so that the accident of this case occurred.

The Defendants primarily asserted that Defendant B’s negligence is less than 10% since Defendant B’s fault was not recognized because Defendant B’s fault was not attributable to the Plaintiff’s violation of the Plaintiff’s signal at the time of the instant accident, and Defendant B’s negligence was merely less than 10% since Defendant B’s fault was not recognized.

B. As to the facts charged, the defendant B was examined as to whether the liability was recognized, and the conviction in the criminal trial was found.