1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. The reasoning for this part of this Court’s reasoning is the same as that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The reasoning for this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that of the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

B. Determination 1) According to the statements and images of Gap evidence 2, 9, Eul evidence 1, and Eul evidence 1, the area parked at the time of the accident of this case is the inside part of the part added to the upper part of Twit-type intersection in the form of a half-dimensional, where a yellow-ray is installed, and Article 2 (Definition) of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15364, Feb. 9, 2018) (amended by Act No. 15364, Feb. 9, 2018) which prohibited parking under subparagraph 1 of Article 32 of the former Road Traffic Act (amended by Act No. 15364, Feb. 13, 2018), the terms used in this Act are as follows.

(i) The intersection. The driver of any motor vehicle provided for in Article 32 shall be prohibited from stopping or parking the motor vehicle in any of the following places: Provided, That the same shall not apply to cases where it follows this Act, any order issued under this Act, or instructions given by police officers, and where it temporarily stops in order to prevent any danger;

) Since it is deemed to fall under “intersections” as prescribed in the above, Trler of this case was parked in a place where parking is prohibited under the Road Traffic Act at the time of the accident. However, Trler of this case.