1. In relation to the traffic accident listed in the attached Table 1, the Plaintiff’s liability for mutual aid funds and damages against the Defendant is 1,101.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid agreement as shown in the attached Table 2 with respect to an individual taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. At around 14:50 on July 26, 2016, the Defendant’s bicycle rear wheel part of the Defendant’s bicycle riding, who was at the right right angle of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, which was driven by a one-lane 1-lane from the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, the front front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the front front part of the Defendant’s bicycle driving, who was at the right angle of the first ethroid in the front of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, was in conflict (attached Form 1 traffic accidents; hereinafter the instant accident), which led to the Defendant’s injury to the base and the tension that requires the Defendant’s treatment for two weeks.

C. The initial accident of this case is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was straighten and that the Defendant’s bicycle was rounded by right, the direction of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s progress is one-lane and the Defendant’s bicycle was a alley-way without the two-lanes. The Defendant’s fault was considerably negligent on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s access distance to the Plaintiff’s vehicle is too high from the front of the accident, to the location where the stop line was contacted, and the distance from the stop line to the point where the Plaintiff’s access distance was monthly.

In this regard, the defendant's father filed an objection to re-audit, and as a result of re-audit conducted, while the plaintiff's vehicle stops to wait for passengers before the F convenience point in the new traffic center, it is confirmed that the part of the back wheel part of the defendant's bicycle, which was made bypassing at a speed of about 11.5 km at the speed from the right side of the course, conflict with the right side of the plaintiff's bicycle, while the plaintiff's vehicle stops in front of the F convenience point in the new traffic center.

Accordingly, the driver A of the plaintiff vehicle was found to be a violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents due to neglect of the duty of safe driving provided for in Article 48 of the Road Traffic Act.