1. On February 8, 2015, in relation to a traffic accident that occurred from the distance of a bridge that occurred from Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si around 14:31, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with respect to B vehicles (hereinafter “Defendant vehicles”).

B. On February 8, 2015, at around 14:31, the Plaintiff driven CNS vehicle with his spouse and children (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and driven the CNS vehicle in the long-term Dong in Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, along three-lanes from strengthening the shooting distance of the bridge to Kimpo-si. The Defendant’s vehicle running along two-lanes in the same direction as in the same direction, coming along the two-lanes, conflicts between the front side of the Defendant’s vehicle and the front side of the Plaintiff’s driver’s seat.

(hereinafter referred to as “the instant accident”). [The grounds for recognition: the absence of dispute, Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, and 7, the purport of the entire pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant vehicle used to change the vehicle line in the section prohibiting the change of the vehicle line while the vehicle used to stand together with the plaintiff's vehicle, and the plaintiff was forced to avoid it, but the collision occurred due to force majeure, so there is no obligation that the plaintiff bears.

B. According to the data prepared by the Defendant’s employees working at the scene of dispatch on the part of the Defendant, the accident occurred while the Defendant’s vehicle used direction direction, etc. and changed its normal car line.

C. According to the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, and Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the indemnity fee deliberation committee has determined the Plaintiff’s negligence by 20%, taking into account the following: (a) there is no clear evidence as to the change of the vehicle in the real line in relation to the instant accident; and (b) there is no sufficient evidence as to the change of the vehicle in the shock line.

However, the data submitted by the Defendant, including the evidence No. 1, was an accident that occurred in the occupied section.

As to the instant accident, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had intention or negligence, the Defendant’s assertion.