1. At around 04:50 on April 14, 2015, c. at the point of 232 km from the Hanju-si, Chungcheongnam-si, the Gyeongnam-si, the main body of which is the main body of the river, and the main body of the river.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed as the same.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition (1) around 04:50 on April 14, 2015, D driven the C Truck which was subscribed to the Plaintiff’s comprehensive automobile insurance contract (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”), and stopped on the two-lanes of the E Truck (hereinafter “First Accident”), which was driven by the end of the two-lane, while driving on the two-lanes of the e Truck (hereinafter “First Vehicle”), which was driven by the surface of the parallel line 232 km at the point of the upstream of the Suwon-si, Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the Suwon-si, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the west-do, the vehicle following

(2) Around that time, the Defendant: (a) driven a large-scale G cargo vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”); (b) driven a two-lane of the above upper-lane, driven the vehicle for the Hggggal-ro vehicle (hereinafter “third vehicle”); and (c) driven the vehicle into two-lanes; and (d) driven the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the second vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”); and (b) caused the Defendant’s injury, such as the cutting-out of the left-hand-hand laverization.

[Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1, Gap 2-1, Gap 2-1, Gap 4-1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff, as the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages incurred by the Defendant due to the second accident of this case, barring any special circumstance.

C. The Plaintiff’s judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion of negligence and exemption from liability does not have a proximate causal relation as a separate accident between the first accident and the second accident of this case.

The second accident of this case or the second accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's total negligence, and thus, the plaintiff is not liable for the second accident of this case, and even if D's negligence is recognized as to the second accident of this case, the plaintiff should be exempted from liability as long as the second accident of this case occurred due to the defendant's gross negligence.

The preceding vehicle shall be a reason such as an accident.