1. On December 23, 2016, at around 02:30, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si, 1185, Category C vehicles shock the Defendant A.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who entered into a comprehensive automobile insurance contract with Nonparty D with respect to C Passenger Vehicles (hereinafter “Plaintiff”).

B. On December 23, 2016, at around 2:30, 2016, Defendant B driven a vehicle E (hereinafter “Defendant’s vehicle”) from the 3-lane road of 1185 letter to the erode fluence from the 4-lane road of 1185 letter to the erode fluence. Defendant A was on the back seat of Defendant B’s children, and the Plaintiff’s side was changed from the 4-lane towards the Defendant’s vehicle to the two-lane.

C. Defendant A closed his family on the grounds that he was investigated on the same day and at the same time and at the same place as indicated in the foregoing sub-paragraph (b), and opened the back of the driver’s seat of the vehicle on the part of the Defendant and opened the two-lane direction. Defendant A, who is the Plaintiff’s vehicle in the two-lane direction, was shocked with the Defendant A’s wheels part of the driver’s seat.

(hereinafter “instant accident”). D.

Defendant A suffered bodily injury, such as the cutting of a pelpel, which requires approximately 10 weeks of medical treatment due to the instant accident.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 3, evidence 4-3, 5 through 10, each entry of evidence 1 and 2-4, Gap evidence 4-4 video and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserted that there was no occupational breach of duty of care on the Plaintiff’s part of the Plaintiff, since it was impossible for the Plaintiff to anticipate that the Plaintiff’s vehicle was within the road, and there was no time to avoid this, and thus, there was no damages liability against the Defendants. 2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that there was no damages liability against the Defendants of the Plaintiff, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was in violation of the duty of care to prevent the instant accident by accurately manipulating the front section and the left section and the left part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and accurately operating the steering and steering system, thereby causing injury to the Defendant A in violation of the duty of care to prevent the instant accident.