1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3.Paragraph 1 of the text of the judgment of the court of first instance.

On January 25, 2019 at the time of the accident, at the time of the accident, the defendant's vehicle driven in the three-lanes of the F-distance 4-lane collision situation in the front of the F-distance Do located in Young-gu, Young-gu, Young-si, Young-si at the location of the location on January 25, 2019, in order for the plaintiff's vehicle to enter the underground lane from the oil station to the underground vehicle, the defendant's vehicle driven in the three-lanes from the road to the underground vehicle. The defendant's vehicle paid 12,51,600,000,000,000 won

1. The circumstances leading to the instant accident are as follows.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 8, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's vehicle was negligent in violating the duty to stop on the front line, since the plaintiff's vehicle was driven at a rapid speed while driving on the road, while driving on the road at a rapid speed.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the driver of the plaintiff vehicle could not anticipate or avoid the entry of the plaintiff vehicle in light of the fact that the plaintiff vehicle violated the road instruction prohibiting entry into the road and the change into the two lanes or the rapid dusts to enter the underground roads, and that the rapid operation of the large cargo vehicle is very difficult.

B. The following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, the Plaintiff’s vehicle, not a normal entry method at the gas station, is found to have been driven along the lane for the purpose of entering the road other than the road. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s vehicle entered the slowly due to the vehicle driving on the two-lanes, and thus, the Defendant’s vehicle could sufficiently avoid this speed even though it was delayed, and the Defendant’s vehicle’s driver is obliged to drive safety driving, such as the duty to keep the front side of the Plaintiff vehicle in front.