1. On July 17, 2015, the accident occurred between C and D vehicles at the site of the construction work of Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si at around 16:30.

A principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed a principal lawsuit and counterclaim.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) The Plaintiff’s vehicle C (congested vehicles; hereinafter “Plaintiff’s vehicle”).

(E) is the insurer which has entered into the comprehensive automobile insurance contract with E as the owner, and the Defendant is the Defendant’s vehicle (pactcar, 2006 type, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant’s vehicle”).

(2) On July 17, 2015, the Plaintiff’s vehicle driver, was at the construction site of Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant accident”), and the Defendant’s vehicle driver, was at the construction site of the Kimpo-si (hereinafter “instant accident”). The Plaintiff’s vehicle driver was at the construction site of the instant construction site, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the construction site of the instant construction site of 16:30, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the end of the instant construction site of the instant construction site, and the Defendant’s vehicle was at the end of the instant construction site of the instant apartment site, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was at the end of the instant construction site of the instant construction site of the instant apartment.

3) The Defendant exchanged Hoer, etc. due to the instant accident, and paid 16,100,700 won for repair expenses. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 3-1 through 4, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 8, Eul evidence 4, 5, and 8, testimony of witness F, fact-finding to the Chief of the Kimpo Police Station of this Court, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as a result of fact

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff, the insurer of the Plaintiff, is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages incurred by the instant accident, since the Plaintiff caused the instant accident due to negligence of driving the Plaintiff due to negligence while the Plaintiff, the driver of the Plaintiff, was moving back.

C. The Defendant had been contracted with concrete removal work at the above construction site, and at the time, the Defendant did not place signal numbers or safety personnel, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the process of supplying ready-mixeds to the Defendant, and the Defendant’s vehicle was in the process of not posting signal numbers or safety personnel, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in the process of supplying ready-mixeds to the Defendant.