1. The Defendants jointly share KRW 7,074,284 with respect to the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from January 5, 2018 to July 9, 2019.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff is a D towing vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

Defendant CFF car (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”) between E and E.

(2) While G, an employee of the Plaintiff, is driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle on January 5, 2018 and driving it at a point of 196.8 square meters at the right side of the road in the direction of the proceeding, G, an employee of the Plaintiff, was faced with the central separation zone, again stopped on the side side of the direction of the proceeding.

(3) After the first accident (hereinafter “the first accident”), Defendant B did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle that was stopped on the road, while driving the Defendant vehicle in the same direction as the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and did not avoid the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the part adjacent to the left side of the Defendant vehicle, which conflict (hereinafter “the second accident”).

(ii) [Ground of recognition] unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 13 (including paper numbers, as well as Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

B. According to the above recognition of liability, Defendant B is the driver of the Defendant vehicle, and Defendant C Mutual Aid Association is jointly and severally liable as the mutual aid business operator of the Defendant vehicle and is liable for the damages incurred by the Plaintiff due to the second accident.

C. However, according to the above evidence, it cannot be seen that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in a state of parking at the center separation zone and stopped at the same time, and that the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver took safety measures, such as the mark of a broken-down vehicle, under Article 66 of the Road Traffic Act and Article 40 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act. However, according to the evidence evidence No. 11 and No. 12, even after the first accident, it appears that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was on the light of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and a siren was sounding. However, it was a separate accident preventive measure to prevent the accident even after the Plaintiff’s vehicle was operated while driving the vehicle.