1. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached list, there is no obligation of the plaintiff to compensate for the damage against the defendant.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 5, 2015, at around 06:25, A driven a taxi for business use B (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”) and changed the lane from the two-lanes of the passenger ship terminal located in north-gu C at the port of distribution to the one-lane, while driving the front wheels of the E driver’s vehicle driving in the same direction as the one-lane in the two-lanes of the passenger ship terminal located in north-gu C at the port of distribution, A, the front shoulder part of the E driver’s vehicle driving in the same direction (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) was shocked by the left side of the Defendant vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The accident of this case was destroyed by the left side of the defendant vehicle.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant is the owner of the Defendant’s vehicle.

[Grounds for recognition] The items or images of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) The instant accident alleged by the Plaintiff was caused by the unilateral negligence of the Defendant’s driver of the vehicle, who stopped on the two-lanes of the said road, but changed the course rapidly to one lane for illegal U.S., and there is no negligence on the part of E, who is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. 2) The instant accident alleged by the Defendant occurred due to the negligence of the Plaintiff’s driver on the front side of the vehicle and the negligence of driving on the two-wheeled vehicle in violation of the method of passage.

B. In full view of the evidence revealed in the above facts of determination, the accident in this case is determined to have occurred due to the mistake that the driver of the Defendant vehicle caused the sudden change of the lane without any signal for illegal U.S., and as the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle, there is no duty of care to take measures to prevent accidents in advance by forecasting the above change of the lane of the Defendant vehicle.

In addition, since the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle appears to have stopped on the two-lanes, the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle will not be considered to have a proximate causal relation with the occurrence of the accident in this case.

Therefore, this case.