1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition 1) around 02:30 on March 17, 2012, the Defendant driven a B Slar car (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and tried to stop on the two-lane two-lanes after facing the central separation vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”). On the two-lanes, the Defendant stopped on the two-lanes by driving the D Spoter Cargo (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) while driving the vehicle at the two-lanes, driving the vehicle on the two-lanes in order to avoid this occurrence, and changing the way to the two-lanes, and driving the vehicle on the right side between the Defendant’s vehicle and the center, driving the vehicle on the two-lanes, and driving the vehicle on the two-lanes to the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and driving the vehicle on the two-lanes as the part of the accident between the Defendant and the center (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(2) The Defendant suffered injury, such as the closure of the two ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal ductal dulle,

3) The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with respect to the Plaintiff’s vehicle (applicable for recognition: Facts of no dispute, Gap’s 1 through 4, Eul’s 2, 3, 6 through 10, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above recognition of the liability for damages, C is liable for the damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident, barring special circumstances, since C is negligent in failing to perform its duty of care to accurately operate the brake and steering gear, such as discovering the prior accident and reducing the speed properly.

2. Determination on the Plaintiff’s motion for discharge, main claim, and the ratio of liability

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was insignificant.