1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of this court's explanation is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the part written by the court under Paragraph 2 below, and thus, it is also acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts to be dried;

A. Of the third part of the first part of the judgment of the first instance court, the phrase “repair expenses for the Plaintiff vehicle and damaged vehicle, medical expenses for the passengers on board the damaged vehicle, etc.” shall be deemed to read “the repair expenses for the Plaintiff vehicle and damaged vehicle, the medical expenses for the passengers on board the Plaintiff vehicle and the damaged vehicle, etc.”

B. From 3th to 12th of the judgment of the court of first instance, the Defendant’s vehicle “There is no causal link between the Defendant’s reverse driving and the instant accident due to the occurrence of an accident in which the damaged vehicle driving the second line was driven rapidly and the Defendant’s reverse driving and the instant accident occurred” means that “The Defendant’s vehicle is driving in one lane without impairing the second lane, and the other 10 vehicles driving the second lane prior to the instant accident are driving, and it is normal to report the reverse driving of the Defendant’s vehicle. The instant accident occurred due to the sudden driving of the victimized vehicle driving the second lane, and there is no causal link between the Defendant’s reverse driving and the instant accident.”

C. From 3th to 17th of the judgment of the court of first instance, “The rapid operation of the driver of the damaged vehicle to avoid the Defendant vehicle at a rapid speed toward himself is a normal response to avoid an accident.” The phrase “The normal response to avoid an accident is to avoid an accident, in these circumstances, the driver of the damaged vehicle, who is a driver of the damaged vehicle, could not immediately grasp whether the Defendant vehicle is traveling along several lanes, and whether the vehicle would change the lane, and it would be an urgent response to avoiding an accident, once he/she intends to avoid an accident, to avoid an accident.”

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.