The defendant.

A. The Plaintiff entered into an automobile insurance contract with C with respect to a non-insurance motor vehicle, and the said contract contains a non-insurance motor vehicle injury guarantee agreement with C’s parents (E and F) as the insured.

B. On September 26, 2012, at around 07:30, the Defendant: (a) driven a G vehicle owned by the Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); and (b) driven the front body of the Defendant’s vehicle, the front body of the vehicle for the HV, which was driven by the wind of the yellow ray to enter the intersection of the yellow ray at the wind of the yellow ray, while the two distances have passed from the dub road in the Goyang-gu, Seoyang-gu, Yangyang-gu; (c) the Defendant shocked the front body of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). E, who was on board the Plaintiff’s vehicle, suffered from the injury of the pipe and human salt of the wooden part of the said accident, such as the upper left-hand pelle to the left-hand pelle of the pelle executives, and F suffered from the injury of the pipe and human salt of the wooden part.

(hereinafter referred to as “victims” c).

At the time of the instant accident, the Defendant’s vehicle was not covered by the liability insurance. Accordingly, the Plaintiff paid 32,455,780 won to the victims with the insurance proceeds of the government guaranteed business based on Article 30(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act, and according to the special agreement with C with respect to the non-life insurance for an automobile insurance contract in excess of the above insurance proceeds, the Plaintiff paid 8,427,190 won of the insurance proceeds to the victims until June 11, 2015 (hereinafter “instant insurance proceeds”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 4 through 6 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above basic facts, since the accident of this case was caused by the defendant's unilateral negligence entering the intersection by violating the signal, the defendant is liable for damages caused by the tort to the victims, and the plaintiff is liable for damages caused by the tort.