1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited the same reasoning as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, except when adding or adding to, the following is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. The Plaintiff’s 15th page 2 of the judgment of the court of first instance, which added or added the part to be used, shall add “by September 29, 2017.”

The three-lanes of the first instance judgment and the 11th parallel between the 18-lanes and the 4th parallels are as follows:

Of them, two lanes, other than a yellow median line, are set up in three lanes: (a) one lane is permitted to park every day while the other lane is in operation since 2012; (b) according to Article 34 of the Road Traffic Act, if a driver parks a vehicle on the road, he/she shall observe the method and time of parking and the prohibition thereof; (c) considering the fact that the vehicle on which the Defendant is parked is a vehicle in a way that allows parking only several days in accordance with the parking guidance sign, the vehicle in which the instant accident occurred on July 14, 2015, the even number of days in which the instant accident occurred, as the vehicle is a place where parking is prohibited, the driver of the Defendant vehicle is at least negligent in leaving the vehicle in the heart of the victim in violation of the even parking system, and as such, the driver of the Defendant vehicle is not liable for damages caused by the instant accident, and thus, he/she may not be held liable for the damages caused by the instant accident.

However, the plaintiff paid insurance money to the victims of the accident of this case, which is the joint tortfeasor, within the scope of payment.