The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract with respect to CNAS vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. At around 13:50 on August 22, 2016, D, while driving four lanes in four lanes in front of the Seocheon Urban Expressway, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Seo-gu, Incheon Metropolitan Government, as Defendant vehicles, contact the part behind the right side of the Defendant vehicle and the part behind the left side of the G Driving G Driving that was drive on the rear side of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). On the left side of the G driving that was driven by the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”). On the left side of the Defendant vehicle, the vehicle was driving on the upper side of the right side boundary of the direction and the part behind the right side of the Defendant vehicle, and was driving on the front side of the lower part of the trees, which were planted in the upper side of the central separation zone.

It is due to its shock that G et al.

At around 17:08 on the same day, the I Hospital died from low-tension shocks, etc.

hereinafter referred to as 'the accident of this case'

(c) The Plaintiff is the sole heir of the deceased G’s father (the fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings).

2. Whether to recognize liability for damages;

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant accident caused the death of the deceased, because the Defendant, the insurer of the Defendant’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff, who is the deceased’s heir, for the damages caused by the instant accident, since the Defendant’s vehicle continues to run a four-lane, but the Plaintiff’s vehicle, who was in the three-lane, was operated in close vicinity to the Defendant’s vehicle at a rapid speed. The instant accident resulted in the Plaintiff’s death by checking the two-lanes of the two-lanes without securing the safety distance, which was driven by the Defendant’s driver while driving the three-lanes. The instant accident occurred as a result of the Plaintiff’s contact with the Defendant’s vehicle seeking to avoid the accident, and then, by shocking the central separation road.