(Article 402 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Occurrence of liability for damages

A. According to the fact of recognition of the liability for damages, the accident of this case occurred due to negligence that occurred from a hole behind the road, although Defendant D could interfere with the normal passage of the Plaintiff’s vehicle without attaching a light device or a reflector on the side of the Defendant’s vehicle, and thus, Defendant D is a tort, and the Defendant Federation is the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, and is liable to compensate the deceased and the Plaintiffs for the damages caused by the accident of this case.

B. Restriction 1) The following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence as mentioned above and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant’s vehicle was moving along the road, and thereby, the right side and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle was obstructed by most of the two lanes or whole, and the Defendant’s vehicle did not have a light device or reflector, ② the emergency of the Defendant’s vehicle, etc. was on the part of the vehicle, but it appears that it was difficult for the Deceased to view the emergency, etc. as it was in the process of the Defendant’s vehicle rhythming (the emergency of the Defendant vehicle, etc. was located near the lane of the first lane and the second lane).

(3) In light of the fact that the accident at issue occurred at night at the time of the accident at issue, the speed of the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident at the time of the accident at issue was limited to the speed of 41 km per hour, and the traffic accident analysis in relation to the accident at issue, stating that “the Plaintiff’s driver was unable to recognize the Defendant’s vehicle because there was no light device or reflector on the part of the Defendant’s vehicle,” etc., it can be recognized that the Deceased was unable to recognize the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle at the time of the accident at issue.