1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B and Defendant C jointly share KRW 54,239,240, and their related thereto from December 30, 2013 to November 18, 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 3, 2013, the Plaintiff driven a two-wheeled vehicle “D” on December 22:15, 2013, and caused injury to Defendant B’s two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant B’s two-wheeled vehicle”) who neglected the signal and went to the left at the left turn from the front side of the Suwon-gu, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, to the left left in accordance with the new subparagraph. The Plaintiff was faced with Defendant B’s two-wheeled vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant B’s two-wheeled vehicle”), who was facing the signal at the front side of the Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-dong, Sucheon-gu, Sucheon-dong, and was faced with the signal at the front

(hereinafter referred to as the "accident of this case").

The defendant DB insurance is an insurer who has concluded a liability insurance contract with the defendant DV, and the defendant C is the borrower and the user of the defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence 2 to 4, 7, Eul evidence 1 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Grounds for filing a claim for judgment as to the claim against Defendant B and C: The judgment of deemed confession (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act) against the said Defendants’ right to claim compensation against the Plaintiff due to the instant accident (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

3. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant K non-life insurance

A. The accident of this case, which recognized liability for damages, occurred due to the operation of the two-wheeled motor vehicles, is liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages jointly with the Defendant B and C within the scope of the liability insurance contract.

B. The above defendant asserts that, in a case where the plaintiff had thoroughly performed the duty of pre-determination, a reasonable amount of comparative negligence should be set-off, since the plaintiff could avoid the accident of this case or could have reduced the damage.

However, it is expected that the driver of a vehicle who is to proceed in accordance with the signal signal will enter the intersection in violation of the signal.