1. As to the traffic accident described in paragraph 1 of the attached list against the plaintiff against the defendant, the annexed list No. 2 shall be stated.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a corporation running non-life insurance business, such as automobile insurance, and is an insurance company that has entered into an automobile insurance contract in attached Table 2 with respect to B vehicles owned by Samsung unemployment (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”), and the Defendant is driving C vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On August 11, 2014, at around 04:20, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle while driving the Defendant, and proceeding from the boundary of the KT telephone station in Ulsan-dong, Chungcheongnam-gu to the new TTtel-distance flooding area; (b) the Plaintiff’s front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle driven by D was shocked by the front part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

On October 27, 2014, the owner of the Plaintiff’s vehicle filed a suit for damages (i.e., the damage insurance company of the Defendant vehicle against the Ulsan District Court 2014 Ghana District Court 2014 Ghana36170 (i). The Ulsan District Court decided to recommend reconciliation that “The damage insurance company of the Republic of Korea shall pay KRW 3,250,000 to the third,250” was decided to recommend reconciliation until June 30, 2015, and was finally decided on June 12, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 1 through 4, Eul's 1 through 3 (including Serials), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s instant traffic accident was caused by the Defendant’s neglect of the duty to take a front-time watch while drinking 0.048%, and the Plaintiff’s negligence was caused by the Defendant’s negligence, and thus, the Plaintiff is not obliged to pay the insurance money to the Defendant in relation to the traffic accident.

B. The instant traffic accident involving Defendant 1 entered the car line that Defendant 1 operated by the vehicle while the Defendant was operating the Plaintiff vehicle in a normal manner, after changing the car line from the vehicle to the vehicle line that Defendant 1 operated.