1. With respect to an accident described in attached Table 1, the plaintiff is the defendant based on the insurance contract listed in attached Table 2.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 28, 2014, at around 6:30, the Defendant: (a) obstructed the center line on the front of the Macheon Apartment apartment, the front of the 663 U.S. Jincheon apartment, and turn to the left at the front of the mountain beach distance from the vicinity of the mountain beach distance to the front of the modern Heavy Industries. The Defendant shocked the left-hand left-hand side of the AB-AV car, an insured vehicle of the Plaintiff, who was located in the same direction at the first lane of the two-lanes of the width of the light light, company apartment, and the front side of the B-AV car (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle of this case

(Attachment 1) Insurance accidents described in attached Table 1, hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). (b)

The Defendant, owing to the instant accident, is currently hospitalized treatment as of the time when suffering from injury to cerebral cerebral cerebral cerebral

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) The instant accident occurred not only by the Defendant’s fault but also by negligence, such as failure to perform the duty of front-time care on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, as the Plaintiff’s vehicle B, which is the driver of the instant Plaintiff’s vehicle. The instant accident is entirely attributable to the Defendant’s negligence, and the instant accident is not attributable to the Defendant’s assertion (A). The instant accident occurred due to not only by the Defendant’s fault but also by negligence, such as failure to perform the duty of front-time care on the part of the Plaintiff’s driver, who is the Plaintiff’s driver.

(B) At the time of the instant accident, the Plaintiff’s vehicle did not turn on headlights different from other vehicles, and thus, the said Party B could not be seen as late, and the said Party B could have seen the Defendant easily crossing the road due to the lack of the vehicle on the opposite side. If the Defendant had discovered, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was able to immediately move on the Dong and prevent the occurrence of the instant accident, and thus, the instant accident could have been prevented.