1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Fact-finding 1) C is the DNA Grand Fast vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant”) around 16:55 October 1, 2015, around October 16:55

(B) A G Tdar vehicle of the Plaintiff’s driving (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff’s vehicle”) coming from the left side of the Defendant’s driving direction at the front side of the Defendant’s drive while driving his/her road in front of his/her mountain, mountain, and mountainous district.

) The front part of the right-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle was shocked by the front part of the left-hand part of the Defendant’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Plaintiff suffered bodily injury, such as satise and tensions.

3) The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract against the Defendant vehicle. The Defendant is an insurer who has entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract for the Defendant vehicle. The fact that there is no dispute about the ground for recognition, Gap’s evidence Nos. 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8, Eul’s evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (each statement including each number, Eul’

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is liable for compensating the Plaintiff for the damages caused by the instant accident as a mutual aid business operator of the Defendant’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Plaintiff was injured by the operation of the Defendant’s vehicle.

C. The limitation of liability, however, is limited, by taking into account the following circumstances: (a) the Plaintiff, as well as the Plaintiff, was negligent in neglecting his duty of care to present the movement of a vehicle that proceeds from other directions while entering the intersection without signal lights; and (b) such error resulted in the occurrence of an accident; (c) the instant accident place is an intersection without signal lights in an apartment complex, and the road width between the Defendant’s traveling road (7.0m) and the Plaintiff’s driving road (7.2m) is almost similar; and (d) even if the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the intersection with a certain degree of earlier priority than the Defendant’s vehicle, the Defendant’s liability shall be limited to 60% by taking into account the Plaintiff’

2. It shall be in addition to the matters stated separately below the scope of liability for damages.