손해배상(자)
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
1. The grounds for this part of this Court’s liability for damages are as follows, and this part of this Court’s judgment is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following parts. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article
One to seven parallels are as follows.
The defendant asserts that the accident of this case occurred because it is obvious that the accident of this case occurred even if the defendant's vehicle temporarily stops for a temporary stop, since the accident of this case occurred entirely due to the plaintiff's negligence and thus, the accident of this case is exempted because the accident of this case occurred entirely because the plaintiff's negligence.
In full view of the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to the instant case, C, a driver of the Defendant vehicle, appears to have discovered the Plaintiff’s abnormal operation prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, and the road in which the instant accident occurred is installed as a yellow line with the first line, and C, as the road was installed as a yellow line due to the snow in the preceding day, could have anticipated the possibility of breaking the central line because the road is in a state of milching with the road surface due to the snow in which the Plaintiff operates the Ortoba, and therefore C could have anticipated the possibility of breaking the central line by sending or speeding the warning signal in preparation for the Plaintiff’s abnormal operation, it is recognized that C was negligent in neglecting it even if it was possible to avoid the accident or reduce at least the level of damage by avoiding the accident due to the Plaintiff’s abnormal operation, and in view of the fact that there was prior operation of the Plaintiff’s abnormal passenger E, which was on board the Defendant vehicle (Evidence 1).