1. In relation to the traffic accident stated in the attached Form, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s liability for damages against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

1. Whether liability for damages arises;

A. Basic facts (1) The Plaintiff is the owner and operator of B-cab for business use (hereinafter “Plaintiff-vehicle”).

The defendant is the operator of a cab for business use (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant vehicle").

(2) On June 23, 2014, around 19:55, the Defendant: (a) driven the Defendant’s vehicle and changed the lane into one lane in order to turn to the left at the right angle while driving along the two-lanes of the salary market in the south-gu, Nam-gu, Daegu with the four-lane distance away from the four-lanes of the salary market in the south-gu, Nam-gu.

At that time, there was a conflict between the front part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle and the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle, which was proceeding from the rear part of the Defendant’s vehicle.

(hereinafter “First Accidents”). The Defendant’s vehicle continued to run as it was 250 meters in the future due to its shock, and the vehicle was in conflict with the vehicle which was parked in the vehicle due to its engine in Newcheon.

(3) The Defendant suffered injury to the left-hand pelle pelle, the left-hand pelle pelle, the left-hand pelle pelle, etc. due to the said traffic accident.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7, the result of the CD verification by this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. (1) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant's injury was caused by the second accident, not by the first accident, but by the second accident, and the second accident is unrelated to the plaintiff's vehicle, so there is no liability for damages against the defendant.

(2) The Defendant asserts that the primary accident occurred due to negligence, such as securing the safety distance of the Plaintiff, neglecting the front-time care, etc., and that the Defendant’s vehicle was placed in a sudden speed where the brakes are not controlled due to the shock of the first accident, which led to the occurrence of the second accident, the Plaintiff should compensate for the Defendant’s damage.

(c) the board (1).