1. The Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendants in relation to the traffic accident stated in the separate sheet does not exist.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 12, 2016, Defendant A driven B Oba (hereinafter “Defendant Oba”) around 05:40 on April 12, 2016, followed by the first lane of 1502, as Seoul Gangdong-gu, along the upper distance, and entered the two-lanes.

The two-lanes could not pass due to the construction in front of the two-lanes. Defendant A did not regard the two-lanes and did not look at the construction site immediately after entering the two-lanes, and did not enter the construction site into the three-lanes and did not go beyond the H beam in the construction site.

B. C, thereafter, while driving a three-lane of D 2 truck (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and driving a three-lane, Defendant Otoba, who was going beyond, was the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle. Afterward, Defendant Obaba, who was driven behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, received the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and thereafter, the F 2 truck of E driving, who was driven behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was also the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

(c) A serious traffic accident caused Defendant A to do so, and C and E also obstructed.

The plaintiff is the insurer of the plaintiff vehicle, and the defendant Mat Fire Insurance Co., Ltd. is the insurer of the defendant vehicle.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4, Eul 1, Eul 2,6 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Plaintiff, the insurer of C, who did not err by deeming that the traffic accident occurred due to the total negligence that Defendant A did not properly see, is not liable to compensate for the damage caused by the traffic accident.

B. It appears that C driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle would have tried to enter the two-lanes by Defendant Oraba in three-lanes.

At that time, the front of the two-lanes has been cut off due to construction works, so it was inevitable for Defendant Oba to enter three-lanes, and C could have sufficiently predicted this.

However, C did not maintain the safety distance and did not take the same action, and was found to be Defendant Oba in excess of it due to the negligence of driving.

This is also the fault of C.