1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, the lower court acknowledged the facts as indicated in its reasoning, and rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion against the Defendant Franchis Federation of Korea Trucking Services, E.W.S. Co., Ltd., and Defendant A on the premise that the instant accident cannot be seen as an accident during the instant Track drive, on the ground that the instant accident was an accident during the instant Track drive, and the instant accident was completely separated from the instant Track on March 2, 2012, and occurred at least seven hours or elapsed from March 3, 2012.

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles of logic and experience.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, where the victim was negligent in the occurrence or expansion of damages in a tort compensation case, it should be taken into account as a matter of course in determining the scope of liability for damages. However, the fact-finding or determination of the ratio of comparative negligence is within the exclusive authority of a fact-finding court unless it is deemed that it is considerably unreasonable

(2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the lower court’s finding of facts as to the grounds for offsetting negligence or its determination cannot be deemed unreasonable in light of the principle of equity. Therefore, the allegation in the grounds of appeal on this point is without merit.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. After recognizing the facts as indicated in its reasoning, the lower court, based on the legal doctrine of the Supreme Court Decision 2012Da27643 Decided September 12, 2013, determined as follows.

1. The plaintiff is the death insurance amount of B based on the accident insurance for each of the instant non-insurance contracts, which is 20,000.