1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The ground for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the argument by the court of first instance, and the fact-finding and decision by the court of first instance are justified even if the evidence submitted by the court of first instance shows each image of evidence No. 10 or No. 12 submitted to the court of first instance.

Therefore, the reasoning for this court’s explanation is as follows, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the assertion emphasized or added by the Plaintiff in this court, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case is 150 meters prior to the crosswalk where the accident of this case occurred has a warning sign "150 meters prior to the crosswalk." Thus, the driver of the defendant vehicle is obliged to pay the driver of the vehicle of this case the driver of the above warning sign "13,167,295 won equivalent to 50% of the insurance money paid by the plaintiff to his heir of the deceased and his heir of the deceased" (i.e., 150 meters prior to the crosswalk), and the driver of the vehicle of this case is required to bear a high duty of care to operate the above crosswalk regardless of the new sign at any time, even if the driver's own crossing without permission. However, according to the above warning sign, the driver of the defendant vehicle of this case violated the driver's duty of care, such as running slowly in accordance with the warning sign at the above crosswalk, and thus, the accident of this case is 50% of the driver's negligence of the driver of the vehicle of this case and the driver of the defendant vehicle of this case.