부당이득금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to the ground of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is by the main text
(A) The plaintiff asserts that the defendant vehicle has changed the course in the road section where a white cell line prohibiting change of course as provided in the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act [Attachment Table 6] No. 506 times is installed, but since the defendant vehicle appears to have changed its course, the above argument is without merit. The plaintiff argues that even if the defendant vehicle had displayed a direction to direct a road display No. 537 of the Enforcement Rule of the Road Traffic Act on the two-lane, it should be taken into account the negligence that the defendant vehicle did not make a bypass at the intersection at the right edge of the road in violation of Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act and the negligence that did not make a bypass at the right edge of the road in violation of Article 25 (1) of the Road Traffic Act. However, even if the plaintiff's expenses are considered, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and thus the plaintiff's appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed.