The plaintiff's obligation to pay mutual aid money based on the traffic accident stated in the attached Form against the defendant shall be 64,936,060 won and this shall apply.

At around 22:50 on April 7, 201, the fact that the joint tort liability was established was established, the driver of the vehicle C who followed the plaintiff's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant vehicle") while the driver was using the plaintiff's vehicle on the first lane while the driver changed his route into a first lane on the roads of the Dondong-dong Election Commission of Dansan National University (hereinafter referred to as "victim Oba"), and the driver of the vehicle C driving the plaintiff's vehicle (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant vehicle") followed the driver of the vehicle while driving the plaintiff vehicle on the first lane.

(A) No. 2-1 and the above accident (hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). The Plaintiff is a mutual aid business operator who has entered into a motor vehicle mutual aid contract for the Plaintiff’s vehicle, and the Defendant is an insurer who has entered into a comprehensive motor vehicle insurance contract for the Defendant’s vehicle.

The plaintiff asserts that there was no negligence on the part of the driver of the plaintiff vehicle on the part of the victim, who caused the accident due to the sudden change of course.

However, in light of the fact that the shock part of the Plaintiff’s vehicle faces head on the front glass of the Plaintiff’s vehicle as the front part of the front part and the fences, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff’s driver was negligent in failing to drive the vehicle by taking well into account the left and right of the Plaintiff’s driver. As such, the Plaintiff is the insurer of the Plaintiff’s vehicle under the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act (hereinafter “The Automobile Accident Compensation Act”). As such, the Plaintiff is liable for damages to the victim pursuant to the Guarantee of Automobile Accident Compensation Act.

Although the Defendant asserts that there was no negligence on the Defendant’s driver in light of the weather and time at the time of the instant accident, in light of the fact that the Defendant’s driver recognized his negligence at the investigative agency (Evidence A2-6) and the fact that the secondary accident appears to have occurred after a certain degree of time after the occurrence of the first accident (Evidence A2-8), the Defendant’s vehicle is the same.