1. On February 7, 2014, at around 21:58, 21:58, B- cabs located on the Southern Sea Highway at the port of the Jinhae-si, Kimhae-si.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the owner of B-business taxi (hereinafter “Plaintiff taxi”), and the Defendant is the driver of C-A-to-purn vehicle (hereinafter “Defendant vehicle”).

B. On February 7, 2014, at around 21:58, the taxi driver D driven the Plaintiff taxi, and around February 7, 2014, around 14:3-laned road at 140 km away from the real bank of the Southern Sea Highway, which is under the control of the Jink-si in Kimhae-si, along one-lane.

At the time, the lower road was down, and the Defendant’s Defendant’s vehicle was in the front section, which was broomed into the broom, and was under the speeding and rhyming the central separation zone.

In this case, D, despite the occupational duty of care to properly reduce the speed of brooms and to accurately operate the steering wheel and brakes, due to the negligence of operating the Defendant vehicle by neglecting it, found the Defendant vehicle late later by neglecting it, and continuously pushed the front part of the Defendant vehicle into the front part of the Plaintiff taxi (hereinafter “the first accident”) with the front part of the Defendant vehicle (hereinafter “the second accident”), and reconcept the front part of the e-driving car, which was driven on the two-lanes at the front part of the Plaintiff taxi (hereinafter “the second accident”).

At the time of the above accident, the defendant suffered injuries, such as the pelle of the left-hand pelle executives, the pelle of the left-hand pelle of the upper-hand pelle of the upper-hand side, and the damage of the gale

According to the investigation records of the police who investigated the above accident, the following facts are confirmed:

① The article of towing vehicles dispatched to the scene at the time stated that the distance between the primary accident point and the final stop point of the Plaintiff taxi was about 50 meters or more.

② In examining the records of the video records of the video records in the Defendant’s vehicle, the police determined that the circumstances leading up to the accidents involving the central separation unit by the Defendant’s vehicle do not constitute the Defendant’s injury, such as the mouth.