1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Basic facts 1) The Plaintiff is a B-business taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff-si”).

2) The Defendant is the owner and operator of CEX, and the Defendant is the owner and operator of CEXEEO (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”).

(2) Around 03:33 September 5, 2014, the Plaintiff taxi driver, D appears to be around 03:38 according to the black and video screening code of the Plaintiff taxi around 03:38.

Plaintiff

In order to turn to the left in the direction of the triangulation distance in Daegu, while driving a taxi and making the turn to the right at the direction of the triangulation distance in front of the first five-lane, the plaintiff taxi sent a yellow signal to 03:38:59 on the black and video screen code of the plaintiff taxi and left the left turn to the left at the middle of the crosswalk where the plaintiff taxi moved to the left.

Elive Defendant driven Defendant Oba, proceeded at a two-lane in the direction of the Daegu Southern Police Station in the direction of the Annbane in the direction of the Annbane, and turned directly into the direction of the Annbane distance of about 61 to 70km per hour in violation of the signal at the Daegu Southern-gu Gyeong-ro 22nd, Daegu Nam-gu, and turned into the direction of the Annbane distance of the city, and there was an accident of collision with each other at the middle of the intersection of the Defendant Obaba, who was directly related to the Plaintiff-si

(3) In the instant accident, the Defendant suffered injuries, such as the structural ducts of the front walls for both sides, which require approximately 12 weeks of treatment. 4) The location of the instant accident was the place where traffic is controlled by signal apparatus, and the stop line was placed on the front side of the direction of the Plaintiff taxi driving, the crosswalk, and the stop line was again installed in the intersection in the future.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2, and the result of this Court’s CD verification

B. The plaintiff asserts that the accident of this case is against the defendant's signal violation and that there is no negligence against D.

The defendant.