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

A. On March 27, 2012, at around 09:19, the Plaintiff driven a private taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) located in Yeongdeungpo-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and proceeded at a speed of about 45 km per hour among the two-lanes from the boundary of the city building in Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul at a speed of about 45 km. The Seoul Yeongdeungpo-gu, Yeongdeungpo-gu, Seoul, intended to change the course to two-lanes on the front side of the filial apartment. The driver D of a taxi for business use in the CYFBSSSS (hereinafter “after-class taxi”) following the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the same direction, moving to the right side in order to avoid conjection with the Plaintiff, and the front wheel part of the front wheel part of the vehicle after the rapid operation conflict with the delivery boundary of the road (hereinafter “instant accident”).

B. The police officer belonging to the Seoul Yeongdeungpo Police Station, who initially investigated the instant accident, determined that the instant accident was caused by the Plaintiff’s change of course, and the vehicle driving ahead of the same direction was attempted to conceal the instant accident.

C. On July 18, 2012, the National Institute of Scientific Investigation assessed that the instant accident occurred beyond the boundary of India when the Plaintiff’s vehicle went into the two-lanes by operating a steering gear in the right direction in order to avoid the accident, while driving the vehicle in the direction to the right direction in order to avoid the accident, and that the latter vehicle was operated to avoid the accident, and that the distance of 55 meters or more or that of 26 meters or more is needed to avoid the accident in order to avoid the accident of this case.

D. On September 13, 2012, the police officer affiliated with the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency, which conducted a reinspection of the instant accident upon the Plaintiff’s request, determined that the instant accident occurred on September 13, 2012, on the grounds of the comparative analysis and analysis of the data on digital driving records of the Plaintiff’s black stay and the digital driving records of the following vehicles, and the results of the appraisal by the National Science Investigation Agency, etc., of the Plaintiff’s negligence while driving a two-lane due to the Plaintiff’s change in the course without examining the movement of another vehicle and without securing safety distance.

E. Meanwhile, on June 9, 2014, the Youngdong Co., Ltd., the owner of the vehicle following the accident, filed a lawsuit seeking compensation for damages against Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff, the insurance company of the vehicle, by Seoul Southern District Court 2013 Ghana86784, and was sentenced to partial winning by the above court. Accordingly, the Hyundai Marine Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. appealed against the judgment of the first instance court as Seoul Southern District Court 2014Na52495. Unlike the judgment of the Police and the National Police and the National Investigative Research Institute on April 3, 2015, the said judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive on the premise that the vehicle following the accident, unlike the judgment of the National Police and the National Investigative Research and Research Institute, was driven in one lane immediately before the instant accident, and tried to change the course of the vehicle following the Plaintiff’s vehicle to the two lanes of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and subsequently found it late, and the judgment of the appellate court became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Facts without dispute, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 4, 9, 20, 21 and 31, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

1) The instant accident occurred solely due to the negligence of the driver of the following vehicle and the negligence of the driver of the following vehicle was recognized to be greater in the relevant civil procedure. The instant accident occurred due to the negligence of the driver of the following vehicle, which led to the collision between the driver of the following vehicle and the driver of the following vehicle, in the situation that the Plaintiff vehicle gradually changed the course from the first lane to the second lane.

2) Nevertheless, police officers E belonging to the Seoul Young Military Police Station, who initially investigated the instant accident, did not examine evidence scientifically and did not determine that the instant accident occurred due to the Plaintiff’s change of course only on the ground of the black boom video. Thus, the Plaintiff was the perpetrator of the instant accident.

3) In addition, the appraiser F affiliated with the National Research and Investigation Agency did not analyze the Plaintiff’s black image and the digital operation log data of the following vehicle, and the latter vehicle was forced to run in one-lane due to a white car parked in the post office located in the Youngpo-si 2, Youngpo-si prior to the instant accident and prepared an appraisal report, and eventually, the Plaintiff was made as the perpetrator of the instant accident.

4) On April 26, 2012, G police officers of the Seoul Metropolitan Police Agency who conducted a reinspection of the instant accident upon the Plaintiff’s request for a reinvestigation omitted from the investigation record despite the fact that the written statement or statement of D, the driver of the vehicle following the reinspection, was prepared, and the Plaintiff was found to be the perpetrator of the instant accident without properly analyzing the digital operation records of the Plaintiff’s black stuffs and video images, and the digital operation records of the vehicle following the reexamination.

5) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the total of KRW 30,191,200, KRW 3,946,80, KRW 1,920,410, attorney’s fees, KRW 2,300,00, KRW 3,000, KRW 16,641,590, and KRW 30,000, and KRW 16,641, and KRW 590, for damages arising from the above tort.

B. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

Article 2(1) of the State Compensation Act provides that the State or a local government shall compensate for damages in cases where a public official inflicts damage on another person in violation of the laws and subordinate statutes while performing his/her duties, so that the State’s liability for compensation is recognized, the act of a public official must be in violation of the relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. Therefore, even if a judicial police officer who is in charge of the investigation of a traffic accident determined that the person involved in the accident was negligent in the traffic accident on the basis of evidence collected and investigated and relevant Acts and subordinate statutes. However, even if the other party’s negligence was recognized as greater in the relevant civil procedure, etc., such circumstance alone does not constitute an unlawful investigation process and determination of negligence by a judicial police officer. A judicial police officer’s negligence can be recognized only where the determination of whether a judicial police officer was negligent in the course of investigation of an accident reaches the extent that it is considerably unreasonable in light of the evidence that he/she conducted, or collected and investigated by, intentionally or negligently distorted the contents of the accident. This is the same

2) As to the assertion of illegal acts against police officers E

In the civil litigation related to the accident of this case, the accident of this case is about to change the course to the two-lane while driving the plaintiff's vehicle in excess of the restricted speed, and it is found late to enter the plaintiff's vehicle into the two-lane, and it is found that the accident of this case occurred in order to avoid it. The fact that the driver's negligence of the driver of the next vehicle is more than the plaintiff is recognized as larger than the plaintiff in the negligence of the driver of the next vehicle is examined above.

However, the following circumstances are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the entries in Gap's Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6, 9, and 31 as well as the overall purport of oral arguments. ① The driver of the vehicle following the accident in this case, while the driver of the vehicle following the accident in this case moved from one lane to two lanes, and the accident in this case occurred. On the other hand, the plaintiff stated to the effect that the vehicle cannot be seen as a vehicle after the change of course from one lane to two lanes. ② The plaintiff's vehicle and the rear racing were installed a black box. However, the video of the latter vehicle did not record the reason before and after the accident, but did not record the change of course of the vehicle in this case since it was difficult to find that the plaintiff's vehicle did not change its course from the point of the accident to two lanes, and it was difficult to find that the vehicle in this case was changed to one lane in this case's first time after the accident in this case's first time and second time after the accident in this case's second time.

3) As to the assertion of an illegal act against the appraiser F of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation

In the civil litigation related to the accident of this case, the accident of this case is about to change the course to the two-lane while driving the plaintiff's vehicle in excess of the restricted speed, and it is found late to enter the plaintiff's vehicle into the two-lane, and it is found that the accident of this case occurred in order to avoid it. The fact that the driver's negligence of the driver of the next vehicle is more than the plaintiff is recognized as larger than the plaintiff in the negligence of the driver of the next vehicle is examined above.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 9, are as follows: (i) there is a difference of 48 seconds between the plaintiff vehicle's black box image and the digital operation log data of the latter vehicle; and (ii) there is a possibility that any error in the number of mixs may occur if comparing the plaintiff vehicle's digital operation log data of the latter vehicle with the black box image; and (ii) there is no reasonable ground to acknowledge that the white vehicle was not directly related to the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at approximately 149 meters, or that there was no reason to view that there was no direct relation with the accident at the time of the accident at the point of the accident at the point of the accident at the time of the accident at the time of the National Science Research Research Institute, in light of the distance between the plaintiff's box and image image.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

4) As to the assertion of unlawful act against police officers G

First, even though the police officer G prepared a written statement or a written statement of D, the driver of the vehicle following the on-site re-inspection, it is insufficient to recognize the omission in the investigation records only by the entries of evidence Nos. 7 and 8, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and the whole pleadings, the Seoul Special Police Agency that conducted G based on the Plaintiff’s petition did not have any written statement or written statement as to D in the course of the on-site re-inspection based on the investigation process of the instant accident and the statement of D, and thus, it can be recognized that the Plaintiff’s petition is concluded. Accordingly, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

Then, in light of the following circumstances: (a) according to the digital operational record system of the vehicle following the fact that the police officer did not properly analyze the digital operational data of the Plaintiff’s black and rear-down vehicle; (b) the driver was at the time of the instant accident and the driver was at the time of the instant accident; (c) the driver was at the time of the instant accident and the driver was at the time of the instant accident, and the driver was at the time of the instant accident, and the driver was at the time of the instant accident and at the time of the instant accident, the subsequent vehicle was at the time of the instant accident and the driver was at the time of the instant accident, and the driver was at the time of the instant accident and the driver was at the time of the instant accident at the time of the change in the direction of 31 degrees in the direction of the defense direction; and (d) the driver was at the time of the instant accident and the driver was at the time of the instant accident at the time of the change in the direction of the right direction; and (e) the driver was at the time of the instant accident.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.