A. Facts of recognition 1) D means the E-Poter Cargo (hereinafter “Defendant Vehicles”) around 13:03 on July 21, 2018.

) A driving of the Defendant, while driving the Defendant, had a U.S. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P. P

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff A suffered from injury, such as satisfying and satisfying satisfying satisfys, etc., due to the instant accident, and the satisfys worn by the Plaintiff B and the Plaintiff A were damaged.

3) The defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to the defendant vehicle, and the plaintiff B is the father of the plaintiff. According to the fact of recognition of liability, the defendant is liable for damages suffered by the plaintiffs due to the accident of this case as the insurer of the defendant vehicle. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred due to the whole negligence of the plaintiff A who violated the signal and proceeded beyond the restricted speed, and that the driver of the defendant vehicle should be exempted from liability since it could not avoid collision. The defendant's vehicle driver can not avoid collision. The following circumstances revealed by the evidence adopted above are as follows: the Uton sign installed in the defendant's proceeding direction only stated "1.5tton", and there is no other regulation or instruction. In this case, the driver shall not cross the road by driving the vehicle or horse if it is likely to interfere with the normal passage of pedestrians or other vehicles and horses (Article 18 (1) of the Road Traffic Act, the driver of the defendant vehicle shall start the driver's vehicle or horse at the end of the signal to the left or right-hand.