1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

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 the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it shall be quoted by Article 8(2) of the Administrative Litigation Act and the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The Plaintiff asserts that the instant traffic accident does not constitute grounds for restrictions on insurance benefits, which is “where there is an accident caused by the Plaintiff’s gross negligence,” solely on the ground that the Plaintiff, even though the cause for the instant traffic accident was not revealed at the time of the instant traffic accident, he did not immediately cause the instant traffic accident by manipulating hand, thereby falling under the grounds for restrictions on insurance benefits.”

However, as the first instance court properly explained, the road at the scene of the traffic accident in this case was marked by the center line as a real line, and thus the plaintiff has a duty of care to prevent the traffic accident by considering the traffic situation of the opposite lane, regardless of the traffic situation of the opposite lane, and for special reasons, even if the center line is invaded by the opposite lane, the plaintiff has a duty of care to keep the opposite lane from the traffic accident.

Nevertheless, it is difficult to deem that there was a situation that caused the accident, such as where the traffic situation of the opposite lane was obstructed by the rapid operation of Hands, but the Plaintiff caused the instant traffic accident by negligence without carefully examining the traffic situation of the opposite lane. Moreover, it is difficult to deem that there was a negligence on the opposite lane with the E, who was in normal course of the damaged vehicle.

Therefore, even if the cause of the Plaintiff’s intrusion on the central line was not revealed, the instant traffic accident can be deemed to have been caused by the act of violation of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Settlement of Traffic Accidents (Death or Injury) due to the Plaintiff’s gross negligence, i.e., the breach of the central line, or at least the principal cause

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

Other reasons asserted by the plaintiff in this court while filing an appeal are the content of the plaintiff in the first instance.