2. All remaining claims of the Plaintiff are dismissed.

3.

A. On December 21, 2016, B: (a) around 12:07, when driving a 1 ton of C 1 ton truck (hereinafter “Defendant”) and driving at the front of the E 27 tons dump dump vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) with the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat even part of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat at the front of the E 27 tons dump dump vehicle, driving on the front side of the e 27 tons dump vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) and died after the Plaintiff’s driver’s dump bom.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The accident situation of this case is as follows.

(Ma1) The plaintiff's vehicle, Me2 shall be the defendant's vehicle).

B’s mother, who is the mother of B due to the death of B, has solely inherited B’s rights and obligations.

The defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract regarding the defendant's vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence, Gap evidence 1, Gap 2, Gap evidence 3 through Gap 5, Gap evidence 10, each of Gap evidence of Gap 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s claim place is an intersection where signal, etc. is installed, but the situation where the construction was conducted in the vicinity of the intersection, and the vehicle, other than the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was approaching the left-hand turn. As such, D, which continued the accident place, has a duty of care to take into account the surrounding traffic situation and proceed with the intersection, but has entered the intersection as the speed is, and it has been due to the negligence, which continued by changing the two lanes to one lane, and the degree of contribution to the occurrence of the accident in this case, is reasonable to evaluate the degree of contribution to 30%.

The defendant is the insurer of the defendant vehicle, and the accident in this case against the plaintiff who is the inheritor B.