1. The plaintiff is based on the insurance contract stated in Paragraph 2 of the attached list with respect to traffic accidents listed in Paragraph 1 of the attached list.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, as an insurance company, concluded a comprehensive automobile insurance contract, such as the attached Table No. 2, with respect to the F car owned by E (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s car”).

B. At around 23:50 on July 8, 2016, Defendant A operated a Hatoba (hereinafter “Defendant Hatoba”) owned by G with no license, and driven three lanes of the five lanes in front of moving the Ratothy (hereinafter “instant road”) located in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-si (hereinafter “the instant road”) from the front line of the front line of the front line of the road, he did not turn on the direction direction direction, etc., while driving the two lanes from the front line of the road of this case to the middle line of the front line of the front line of the front line of the Defendant Hatoba and driving the two lanes of the instant road of this case on the front line of the lower part of the Defendant Hatoba, who was driving in the same direction as the rear part of the Plaintiff Hatoba, who was in the same direction of the two lanes of the instant road of this case, and was in the middle line of the latter part of the road of this case, thereby suffering from the injury of the two.

(hereinafter “instant traffic accident”). C.

In addition, the defendant C, who was on the backside of the defendant Otoba due to the instant traffic accident, was also injured, but the defendant C was currently in the state of completion of the treatment.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2, appraiser J and K's appraisal result, fact-finding results of this court's legal science and technology research institute, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the traffic accident of this case occurred due to the defendant A's total negligence, who changed the vehicle from the three-lane to the two-lane without properly examining the movement of the plaintiff's vehicle, driving the two-lane of the road of this case, and that the vehicle of this case was changed from the three-lane to the two-lane. The plaintiff's vehicle of this case at the time.