1. On February 12, 2013, vehicles listed in the separate sheet are persons in front of the gas station in Gwangju Mine-gu, Gwangju around 19:10.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into an automobile comprehensive insurance contract with the E and E-owned Fitscar vehicles, and the Defendants are children of the networkG.

B. On February 12, 2013, E was killed due to shocking the network G which was cross-sectioned from the direction of progress to Gwangju Metropolitan City along a two-lane road in front of the Driju National Road 22 lanes in front of the Driju District Office located in Gwangju Metropolitan City along a two-lane road.

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

E was charged with violating the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents as the facts charged that neglecting the duty of Jeonju and causing the death of the deceased, and caused the death of the deceased. However, on August 16, 2013, E was rendered a judgment of not guilty by the said court.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was a de facto exclusive motorway with a complete width without a street etc., and the time of the accident was considerably set at the time of the accident, and thus, the instant accident was caused by force majeure under circumstances unpredicted by E. As such, the Plaintiff asserted that the instant accident was caused by force majeure, and sought confirmation against the Defendants, who are the deceased’s children, as the insurer of the accident regarding the instant accident, that the Plaintiff, who is the insurer of the vehicle involved, has

As to this, the Defendants asserted that the instant accident was caused by E’s negligence of neglecting the duty of Jeonju or proceeding beyond a limited speed, or by manipulating the steering gear toward the direction toward the deceased’s progress, and that the Plaintiff claimed payment of the amount stated in the purport of the claim as damages as a counterclaim against the Plaintiff.

3. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, Eul evidence Nos. 3 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.