1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. At around 20:30 on November 25, 2012, C driven Dsi (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and returned to drive a bus again without entering a two-lane to drive the bus at a bus stop, since the bus, which was driven on the two-lane side prior to the Dopra in the school site in Busan, was operated from the Dopra in the front of the school site in Busan, to a two-lane in order to change the vehicle to a two-lane, while driving the two-lane from the Dopra in the front of the school site in the Dopung-dong in Busan, the bus was driven on the right side of the two-lane in order to change to a two-lane.

B. At the time, the Defendant, while driving the E-to-land and driving the said Plaintiff’s vehicle following the said Plaintiff’s vehicle, is a space located on the one-lane road in order to change the vehicle vehicle to a two-lane, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle returned to a one-lane, which led to the Plaintiff’s vehicle returning to the first lane, conflicts with the vehicle that operated the said vehicle beyond the median line.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”) as a traffic accident described in the purport of the claim, C.

Due to the instant accident, the Defendant sustained injury, such as cerebral leculsis, which requires treatment for about eight weeks, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff is a mutual aid business entity that entered into a contract with the pertinent C to compensate for the damage to a third party who suffered from an accident that occurs due to the operation of the Plaintiff’s vehicle.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 4-2, 4, 5, 10 through 20, 25, 26, Eul evidence 2-1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is the cause of the claim in this case, and the plaintiff's vehicle tried to change the plaintiff's vehicle from the first to the second line while operating the direction, etc., but the bus in the preceding operation continued to operate the first line, which is one of its own bus stops at the bus stop without changing the vehicle's vehicle at the wind, so there is no negligence on the plaintiff's vehicle, and the accident in this case violates the Road Traffic Act.