1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part concerning the claim for damages caused by the traffic accident dated February 10, 201 shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant is the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 25, 2010, Plaintiff B driven CSM 5 car (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Appellant”) on August 11, 2010, and (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Appellant A”) on March 25, 2010, the front part of the CF 5 car (hereinafter “Defendant-Defendant vehicle”)’s U.S. car, which was subscribed to the Defendant-General Automobile Insurance, conflict with the rear part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle’s front part of the EM car (hereinafter “Defendant-Defendant vehicle”) on the right-hand side, which is the front part of the instant vehicle, while driving a two-lane in the direction of the early TW in the direction of the TW as one lane depending on the three-lane.

The above plaintiffs suffered injuries, such as light, fluoral salt, adaptation disorder, etc.

B. Around 15:00 on February 10, 201, the second accident F driven a G fire-fighting vehicle covered by the Defendant’s comprehensive motor vehicle insurance, and driven a two-lane of the four-lane distance in front of the Busan Bupyeong-gu Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City, the vehicle line was changed to the first one while driving a two-lane of the four-lane in front of the Busan Metropolitan City Busan Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff’s driver B (Plaintiff A, the first passenger) driven at the first lane, and suffered injury to the Plaintiffs, such as light, salute, and adaptation disorder.

[Ground of recognition] In the absence of dispute, each statement of Gap 1, 2, 3, 6 evidence, Eul 6, 7, 10 evidence (including the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the result of this court's commission of physical appraisal to the director of the hospital of the Macheon-do National University, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the Defendant’s main defense

A. As to the claim for damages caused by the second accident of the plaintiffs in the 2nd accident, the defendant raised a defense that the claim for damages caused by the second accident is unlawful, since the defendant agreed with the plaintiffs immediately after the second accident.

In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Plaintiffs on February 2, 2011.