1. On June 15, 2013, from 10:50 to 10:50 to 1, 2013, arising from C vehicles on the front of the Man-dong Man-dong Man-dong Man-dong.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 15, 2013, around 10:50 on June 15, 2013, the Defendant was driving three-lanes of the road in front of the U.S. Do-dong of U.S. at the port of port to drive the three-lanes of the U.S. 5 vehicle.

E changed the vehicle from the two lanes of the above road to the three-lane while driving a CM3 vehicle on the two-lane of the above road, and the above SM3 vehicle was cut down in front of the right side of the above SM5 vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant suffered from the injury of the scopical scopher and the scopical scopher due to the instant accident.

C. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with E and the aforementioned SM3 vehicles, as shown in the attached list.

The Plaintiff paid the Defendant totaling KRW 11,473,490 from June 27, 2013 to October 26, 2017 due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy facts, Gap 1, 2, 5, 7, 9 evidence, Eul 2, 3 and 4 evidence (including each number), the result of commission of document forwarding to the branch office of the Daegu District Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above fact of recognition of the occurrence of liability for damages, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages caused by the instant accident, except in extenuating circumstances.

However, the two-lanes where E was the left-hand turn, but the accident site of this case was the place where the change of the vehicle is possible, E appears to have turned on the direction of the right-way direction, etc. in order to change the three-lanes to the right-hand route, and it appears that the defendant could have discovered the vehicle of E in order to change the vehicle of this case even with the defendant, and it is deemed that the defendant could have discovered the vehicle of E in order to change the vehicle of this case, it is reasonable to view the defendant's fault ratio to be 10%, and the scope of the plaintiff's responsibility is limited to the remaining 90%.

3. Scope of damages.

A. In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of an obligation, the Plaintiff, who is the obligor, first, specified the claim and causes the occurrence of the obligation.