2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

A. The Plaintiff A is the owner of the D Freight Vehicle (hereinafter “instant Plaintiff”), and the remaining Plaintiffs are the said family members, and the Defendant is the mutual aid business entity that entered into a mutual aid agreement with the owner F of the E Freight Vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicle”).

B. On April 29, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) driven the instant Plaintiff’s vehicle on April 14:15, 201; (b) proceeded into the instant Defendant’s vehicle while driving the instant Plaintiff’s vehicle along the instant vehicle along the instant vehicle along the U.S. Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan City on the front side of the U.S. So-called the front side at the intersection, and making the left-hand turn to the right-hand side at the right-hand side of the said intersection at the right-hand side.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

With respect to the instant accident, the Plaintiff A was placed in place in violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents, and was investigated on January 3, 2012, but was subject to a disposition of suspicion (Articles 2011 and 53676 of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office). Accordingly, the Plaintiff A filed a complaint against F to commit a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Article 2012-type 8090 of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office) but was dismissed (Article 2012-type 8090 of the Busan District Prosecutors' Office), and all appeals against the above rejection disposition (Article 2012-type 616 of the Busan High Court) and the application for the adjudication thereon (Article 2012-type 462

F filed a claim for damages against the Defendant, who is a mutual aid business entity related to the Plaintiff’s instant vehicle, but the claim was dismissed due to lack of evidence to prove the violation of the Plaintiff’s signal. (The Busan District Court Decision 2013Gau25781, 2014Na2324)

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 13, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs asserted that the accident of this case occurred because they met the plaintiff's vehicle of this case, which was left left by negligence of the defendant's fault in violation of the signal, and they met the plaintiff's vehicle of this case. Thus, the defendant caused the accident of this case to the plaintiffs.