1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement with the E Traler owned by D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

On December 31, 2013, the Defendant Incorporated Corporation B (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated”) (hereinafter “Defendant Incorporated”) succeeded to the human resources, rights, and obligations of G Stock Companies, the user of F, and the Defendant C Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) entrusted the foregoing G Stock Companies and the Defendant Incorporated Corporation with duties to prevent safety accidents, maintain order, etc. in harbor facilities.

B. Around 18:25 on March 30, 2012, H driving the Plaintiff’s vehicle caused an accident attributable to F (hereinafter “victim”) who was signaled at the railroad crossing, while driving a two-lane of the two-lanes in front of the small bank terminal located in the Southern-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “Seoul”) toward the I apartment room on the west-ro side. On October 8, 2012, H was convicted of the following criminal facts: (a) the victim was convicted of the injury, such as the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the upper part of the body, the upper part of the upper part of the lower part of the body, the upper part of the lower part of the lower part of the branch court of Busan District Court (2012Da2639). (b) on October 8, 2012, H was convicted of the crime:

The defendant of this case is a person who is engaged in driving of freight cars.

On March 30, 2012, the Defendant driven the above cargo vehicle on March 18:25, 2012, and continued to drive the railway crossing while driving the two-lanes of the two-lanes in front of the small terminal located in the Nam-gu Busan Metropolitan City.

No one shall enter a railroad crossing because the alarm system has been soundingd as a railroad crossing.

Nevertheless, the Defendant failed to discover the victim F working at the railroad crossing due to negligence of entering and driving the railroad crossing while neglecting this, and served the victim's bridge part going to the front part of the said cargo vehicle and served as the wheels of the driver's seat.