2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to A Poter Truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff truck”), and the Defendant is the owner of B high-speed bus (hereinafter “Defendant bus”).

나. 원고 트럭의 운전자 C가 2015. 7. 13. 14:40경 비가 내리고 있던 성남시 분당구 궁내동 소재 경부고속도로 하행선 서울톨게이트를 통과한 후 2차로로 진행하던 중 선행차량 서행을 뒤늦게 발견하고 이를 피하기 위하여 버스저용차로인 1차로(이하 ‘이 사건 버스전용차로’라 한다)로 급하게 차로를 변경하는 과정에서 이 사건 버스전용차로를 진행하던 피고 버스의 우측 전면부와 원고 트럭의 좌측 전면부가 충돌하였고, 그 충격으로 원고 트럭이 우측으로 튕겨나가면서 고속도로 우측 방음벽에 충돌하는 사고가 발생하였는데, 이로 인하여 원고 트럭의 운전자 C이 사망하였다

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Plaintiff, as an insurer of the Plaintiff truck, paid totaling KRW 42,911,320 (hereinafter “instant damages”) to the deceased’s bereaved family members, by taking account of the net C’s negligence 40%, such as lost earnings, funeral expenses, consolation money, etc.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 to 5, Evidence No. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's argument that the driver of the defendant bus with the plaintiff's argument is well grounded on the front section and the side, and the vehicle that entered the bus after changing the bus line is required to yield the course and speed so as not to cause any accident by accelerating the speed, but the negligence of the driver of the defendant bus caused the accident in this case by the negligence of the plaintiff truck driver, and it is reasonable to view that the negligence ratio between the plaintiff truck driver and the driver of the defendant bus in this case and the driver of the defendant bus driver is 60:40. Thus, the defendant's objection is against the plaintiff.