1. In the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the counterclaim defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on September 10, 2012, the Plaintiff driven a B-Vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) around 22:05 (hereinafter “instant intersection”); (b) was straightened from the southwest-gun C to the library from the south Limit of the intersection; (c) the Plaintiff was driving a F vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); (d) was straighten from the south Limit High School to the Central Park at the south Limit of the same intersection; (d) the Plaintiff was driving a vehicle at the same intersection; (e) the road from the south Limit of the city; (e) the road from the south Limit of the city to the south Limit of the city; (e) the road from which the Plaintiff is driving; (e) the road from which the Plaintiff was driving; (e) the road from which the Plaintiff was driving; (e) the two parallel lines; and (e) the road from which the Defendant was driving; and (e) there was no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the insured; and (e) there was no comprehensive insurance company entering into an insurance contract for serious injury between the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff.

B. According to the above facts, since the accident of this case was caused by the operation of the defendant vehicle, the defendant is liable to compensate the insurer of the defendant vehicle for the damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the accident of this case under Articles 3 and 10(1) of the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act and Article 724(2) of the Commercial Act.

2. According to the statement in the certificate No. 2, the road in which E is proceeding was the red color extinction signal at the time of the instant accident, and the E violated the temporary suspension duty and is proceeding as it is due to the intersection directed by the red color extinction signal.

It is recognized that the accident of this case occurred.

Next, we examine how the Plaintiff entered the instant intersection in any new subparagraph.

In full view of the statements and images of Gap evidence 8, Eul evidence 1, 9, 17, 20, 21, and 22, and the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of witness G of the first instance court, the National Police Agency 1.