1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts, whether the Plaintiff’s liability is recognized, and this Court’s explanation on this part is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the following cases: (a) Nos. 11 through 14 of the 7th judgment of the court of first instance; and (b) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. In full view of the facts admitted prior to the occurrence of the accident under the preceding paragraph and the circumstances leading up to the occurrence of the accident under the preceding paragraph, the accident in this case seems to have the greatest cause for the Deceased to be unable to look at “a signal change of the crosswalk and the U-turn or left turn on the front-hand turn of the front-hand vehicle” due to his neglect to perform his duty of care.

On the other hand, however, the deceased is proceeding immediately behind the Plaintiff’s vehicle, while the Plaintiff’s driver had the intent to make a U-turn before the U-turn area, and even if he could clearly express his intention to be a U.S. driver before the crosswalk area, the Plaintiff’s driver is proceeding nearly at the same speed as before the designated area of U.S. driver’s license for U.S. driver.

In accordance with the signal change, the driver of the plaintiff vehicle tried to immediately turn back the vehicle at the starting point of the U.S. driver's license. In light of the fact that there was room for misunderstanding that the vehicle will continue to turn to the left at the front intersection of the plaintiff vehicle, and that it is difficult to control the vehicle at the speed of the U.S. driver's license, in particular, there was a need to accelerate the driver by clearly expressing the U.S. driver's intention earlier. Thus, it cannot be said that there was no negligence on the part of the plaintiff vehicle that neglected such duty.

Furthermore, the accident of this case had a significant impact on the driver's fault that the driver of the plaintiff's vehicle was not immediately stopped until the death of the deceased, and the expansion of such damage is also deemed to have been negligent in the plaintiff's vehicle.

Ultimately, this case.