1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 19, 2013, at around 07:40, Crenice vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff-motor vehicle”) temporarily stopped on the side on the front side of B located in Seogu-gu, Daegu-gu.

Plaintiff

A driver of a vehicle opened the back of the Plaintiff’s vehicle within his vehicle, and there was a conflict between D and D, which was proceeding on the back of the vehicle and the rear.

Due to its shock, D was set off on the road.

At this time, F, while driving a G 2.5 tons truck (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant vehicle”), was making a sudden stop by reporting the said accident.

After the accident, D has been out of the defendant's vehicle.

At the time of an accident, the following drawings are as follows:

B. D due to the instant accident, D suffered bodily injury, such as the 3rd century emissions and the 1, and the 1, and the 4th century pressure frame.

The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Plaintiff’s owner, and the Defendant is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with the Defendant

The Plaintiff paid D 94,967,890 won to D for damage caused by the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant's vehicle neglected the duty of Jeonju and caused the secondary collision due to negligence that caused the second collision by the defendant's vehicle. Since D suffered an injury due to the second shock by the defendant's vehicle, the defendant's vehicle has contributed at least 70% to the damage of D caused by the accident in this case.

Therefore, the defendant jointly exempted from the plaintiff's exit should respond to the plaintiff's indemnity equivalent to the ratio of negligence.

3. Determination

A. First, as evidence consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, H’s statement, which is the driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, is admissible.

(No. 15, No. 7, 8). H. written on December 3, 2013, “D sets the front wheels of the freight truck.”