1. In relation to the accident described in the attached Table 1, the obligation to pay mutual aid money to the Defendant (Counterclaim Defendant) for the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. Facts of recognition 1) C is about 23:10 on June 4, 2015, D-si (hereinafter “Plaintiff-Vehicle”).

(i) the Defendant’s HObaba (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Obaba”) driven by the Defendant’s driving on one-lane from the two-lane two-lane parallels along which he/she was driving along the road front of the Songpa-gu Seoul Emba and going to the right from the west distance from the west Sabastm.

2) The Plaintiff’s accident was shocked on the right side of the Plaintiff’s vehicle (hereinafter “instant accident”).

2) As a result of the instant accident, the Defendant suffered from the injury, such as the left-hand sloping, etc.

3) The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the Plaintiff’s vehicle. [The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that has entered into a mutual aid agreement for the Plaintiff’s vehicle.]

B. According to the above recognition of liability, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for the damages caused by the instant accident as the mutual aid business operator of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, barring any special circumstance, since the Defendant was injured due to the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

The plaintiff asserts that the accident in this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's violation of the duty of Jeonju and the method of passage, and that the plaintiff is not responsible for the accident in this case since the plaintiff's driver was not negligent.

When a left turn is made at an intersection where no signal, etc. is available, a driver has a duty of care to check the safety by driving on the right and the left and to prevent the occurrence of an accident.

However, according to the facts of recognition and the above evidence, when the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle intends to turn to the left, it can be recognized that there was a possibility of conflict within the intersection in the case of the plaintiff's vehicle to turn to the left, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the driver's turn to the left over the speed of the defendant's Orala.