A. On September 16, 2013, Defendant B neglected the duty of care to check and proceed with safety while driving a CA car (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) on the side of the new elementary school, which is located adjacent to the ancient city, which is located adjacent to the ancient city at the ancient city (hereinafter “Defendant B”), in the direction of a show-out in the long-distance, while neglecting the duty of care to check and proceed with safety by checking well the front door. Defendant B received the back part of the D A car (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) driven by the Plaintiff, which was parked due to red signal from a three-distance distance, from the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle, and caused injury to the Plaintiff, such as catum, etc.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

Defendant K non-life insurance Co., Ltd. (the trade name at the time of the accident in this case is El branch damage insurance Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “Defendant K non-life insurance”) is an insurance company that entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Defendant B relating to the Defendant vehicle around the day of the accident in this case.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, each entry or video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 11, and 13 (including branches numbers where they are not specified despite the existence of a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. According to the facts of recognition under Article 1(1) of the Act, Defendant B committed a tort in which the Plaintiff’s vehicle stopped as Defendant Company due to negligence in failing to perform the duty of the front line, and caused the instant accident, and Defendant K non-life insurance, in accordance with the comprehensive automobile insurance contract between Defendant B, took over the liability for damages pursuant to the comprehensive automobile insurance contract between Defendant B, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly liable to compensate the Plaintiff for damages arising from the instant accident. 2) The Defendants asserted that the Defendants should limit the Defendants’ liability in light of the fact that the Plaintiff did not wear the safety level at the time of the instant accident, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge this.