Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. On July 13, 2014, around 10:10 on July 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was driving at the higher level of Cheongyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-do, Yangyang-gun, Yangyang-do, B (hereinafter “the instant Obaba”), which led to the shock of the right side protection wall of the road.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Plaintiff requested investigation to the Seocho Police Station on the ground that there was suspicion that the imprisoned vehicle was prone and escaped due to shocking back of the back part of the instant Obane. However, around May 2015, internal investigation was completed due to the single accident of Obane in this case.

C. On March 2016, the Plaintiff submitted a complaint to the jurisdiction of the Chuncheon District Prosecutors' Office to conduct the second investigation into the instant accident at the Seocho Police Station. On the grounds that, “The 112 reporter C was about overtaking in the instant case and testified that he was at the center and went beyond the protection wall of the congested person, the driver of the Grand Fluor vehicle was also a similar statement. The driver of the Grand Fluor vehicle was also a similar statement in his name. In light of the following factors: (a) the accident trace of the accident scene at the scene of the instant accident; (b) the impact trace of the Austria in the instant accident site; and (c) the results of the assessment by the National Scientific Research Institute and Road Traffic Authority (e.g., the lethar pente gate is irrelevant to the instant accident; and (d) it cannot be determined whether it was caused by the shock of another vehicle; and (e) the driver of the Seocho Police Station was sent to the prosecution on the ground that it was not recognized to have been prosecuted by the National Police Agency on July 25, 2016.