A. The Plaintiff A and C are punished by the deceased H (hereinafter “the deceased”). The Plaintiff B is the buyer of the deceased, and the Defendant is a mutual aid project operator who entered into a mutual aid agreement with the E-city bus belonging to the daily transport service (hereinafter “Defendant”) for the E-city bus belonging to the Defendant.

B. Around 23:50 on May 6, 2013, D driven the Defendant vehicle and driven along the two lanes from the G oil station located in the Gao-dong to the ridge distance from the G oil station located in the Gao-si to the ridge distance. D driven the Defendant vehicle at the one-lane of the opposite one-lane between the three-lanes and the two-lane between the two-lanes and the two-lane between the two-lanes and the two-lanes in the opposite part. D driven the Defendant vehicle at the center near 35 meters from the front side of the Defendant vehicle and driven along the road along the opposite part of the Defendant vehicle, and caused the death of the Deceased.

(hereinafter “instant accident” (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). See the fact that there is no dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 8, 10 through 11, Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 and 3, Eul’s whole purport of the pleading [Evidence evidence] Gap’s evidence Nos. 12, and inquiry into the Director of the Traffic Accident Assessment Board of the court of the first instance (where there are several different appraisal results with the same matter, it may be recognized by one of them unless it violates the rules of experience and logic (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 91Da39368, Oct. 27, 1992; 94Da34562, Aug. 25, 1995)]

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs asserted that D, the driver of the defendant vehicle, was not bound and driven at a speed below the speed limit even at night. ② The driver of the defendant vehicle, driving along the two lanes, changed the lane to the three-lane in the right-hand display, and the left-hand turn to the first-hand turn without permission. ③ Although the vehicle of the plaintiff is different, the driver of the vehicle is not viewed as a front-way, and is obliged to see the window on the left-hand side of the driver's seat and see it.