1. On November 12, 2016, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) with respect to a traffic accident that occurred in front of D at the time of strike, around November 11, 2016.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2016, the Defendant, without a driver’s license, driven the E-to-Land (hereinafter “the instant O-to-Land”) on or around 11:40 on November 12, 2016, while driving the E-to-Land (hereinafter “the instant O-to-Land”) and driving a one-lane road in front of D in front of the instant O-to-Land at the seat of the Go-to-de Station, was suffering from the injury of the Plaintiff’s non-plow fever, etc., on the left side of the Fone Star vehicle, which was parked on the side of the road (hereinafter “the instant vehicle”).

(hereinafter “instant accident”). B.

Plaintiff

An assistant intervenor is an insurer who has concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap's statements and images as to Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 3, Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 11, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the instant accident occurred due to the Defendant’s unilateral negligence on the part of the Defendant while driving the instant Otoba in a license without permission, and there is no proximate causal relation between the Plaintiff’s parking of the instant vehicle and the instant accident.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff illegally parked the instant vehicle at a place where parking is prohibited under Article 32 subparag. 2 of the Road Traffic Act, i.e., “place within five meters from the corner of the road,” and as a result, the Defendant was injured by the instant vehicle, thereby, the Plaintiff, the driver of the instant vehicle, is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages suffered by the Defendant due to the instant accident.

3. Determination

A. The evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the instant vehicle was parked within 5 meters from the corner of the road at the time of the instant accident, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant vehicle was parked in the factory sites adjacent to the road where even even if they were live, in the statement Nos. 2, 3, 4, and 11.