1. All appeals filed by the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) the reasoning of the court of first instance is that the Defendant’s argument is insufficient to accept as to the evidence submitted additionally in the trial; and (b) the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows; and (c) thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. Added part of the judgment of the court of first instance shall add the following part to the third part in the judgment of the court of first instance:

Before the instant accident, the Plaintiff: (a) caused a serious accident that caused the collision of a cruise vehicle to the left-hand side of the Poter truck that had been driven by a snow in the first way; (b) the 130 vehicle that was driven behind the instant accident was witnessed and operated the said accident; (c) however, the 130 vehicle, which was driven by the said accident, led to the shock of street lights on the central separation line of the road, was pushed down toward the side, was pushed down, was pushed down toward the side, and the fire was caused; and (d) the accident occurred; (c) as a result, all of the 1 and 2-lane vehicles were parked in the front road, and thus, it was inevitable for a driver of the vehicle, who was driven by a low-speed vehicle, was negligent in a sudden operation.

It argues that there is no negligence in failure to properly operate the steering gear.

However, as recognized earlier, the negligence of a driver of a motor vehicle with a low bid is running without sufficiently leaving the road in a snowway, and if such duty was performed properly, it can be avoided the accident of this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

또한 피고는, 이 사건 사고 당시 포터 트럭은 2차로에 정차한 것이 아니라 투싼 승용차의 추돌로 인하여 반시계방향으로 회전하면서 1차로로 튕겨져 나왔으며, 이와 같이 반시계방향으로 회전하면서 1차로로 피하는 이스타나 승합차를 충격하였으므로 이스타나 승합차 운전자에게 아무런 과실이 없다고 주장한다.

However, the pleading is made in the entry of No. 1-36.