2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

(2) above 5th of the first instance judgment, the second to 17th of the next 2.B.

In addition to those used as mentioned in the same paragraph, it is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. The defendant asserts that since the deceased's decline at the time of the accident in this case, in a situation where the driver's view is not good, the driver's view is used and the driver's view is not sufficient, without permission, to cross the intersection in violation of pedestrian signal and the accident in this case where the driver was faced with the defendant's vehicle, the defendant's negligence should be reflected at least 70% in determining the defendant's responsibility.

However, according to the evidence and the purport of the whole pleadings as seen earlier, D was unable to properly recognize the movement of the deceased, who was salved in a prohibited place in violation of the signal, and the location of the accident in this case is likely to cause the occurrence of the accident in the event of a banned U-turn, because many people attempt to cross the road in the direction of the blind line with an intersection, and thus, it seems that the act of violating the signal signal of the Defendant vehicle and illegal U-turn was the final cause of the accident in this case. However, the deceased neglected to exercise his duty of care, such as passing a crossing in violation of pedestrian signal, and such negligence is also deemed to have affected the occurrence of the accident in this case and the expansion of damage. However, when the deceased starts to cross the road to the direction of the blind line, a crosswalk signal shall be placed.