The Plaintiff

A. From June 30, 2017, the Defendant B Federation 31,938,620 won and its related thereto:

B. Defendant C Co., Ltd.

1. Basic facts

A. Status 1 of the party concerned) The Plaintiff is a DFD vehicle (hereinafter “Plaintiff vehicle”).

(2) The Defendant Federation is a mutual aid operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with respect to the motor vehicle E E E E E E E (hereinafter “Defendant 1”).

3) Defendant Company is a Fump truck vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant 2 vehicle”).

B) The insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract with respect to A. B. The occurrence of the instant accident is the insurer that entered into an automobile insurance contract. (B) around 05:15 on October 15, 2016, Defendant 1: (a) was driven along the three-lanes from the intersection of the Seoul Eastwest Line to the military direction (hereinafter “instant road”); (b) while the Defendant 1 driven along the three-lanes from the intersection of the U.S. to the military direction (hereinafter “instant road”); (c) was a tent roof (b) installed on the cover strings (the boness are seen as a solid material) that was loaded and loaded on the part of the military direction; (d) was designed to protect A.S. strings from sunlights (hereinafter “the first collision”). However, it was separated from being loaded on a high-priced rail (hereinafter “the first collision”).

2) Although Defendant 2’s vehicle following the three-lanes of the instant road discovered a cover with a rail and rapidly changed the course into a two-lane, the front side of the instant road fell into a three-lane cover and the cover was destroyed by a e-mail vehicle moving into a three-lane. In addition, the co-section, where the two-lanes of the instant road go into a two-lane road, e-mailed vehicle was rapidly operated and changed into a one-lane, but the left-hand side of the Defendant 2 vehicle was turned into the left-hand side (hereinafter “the second collision”).

3) The co-owned vehicle, as a part of the driver’s seat, conflicted with G-owned vehicle’s string side of G-owned vehicle (hereinafter “victim’s vehicle”) driving a one-lane of the instant road (hereinafter “third collision”) (hereinafter “third collision”), and the damaged vehicle stopped on one-lane due to its shock.

4. The plaintiff driving a single-lane on the road of this case.