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. On March 17, 2018, at the time of the occurrence of the basic fact-finding accident, conflicts with the back part of the Defendant’s vehicle, where the part of the rear wheels of the Plaintiff’s temporarily parked at the time of the locking accident, was left behind the back part of the lower vehicle, and the back part of the lower vehicle stopped at the time of the locking accident, as shown in the attached accident scene in the vicinity of the shooting distance near the Gu-dong-dong Undong-dong Undong-dong Undong-dong Undong-dong Village at places 12:58 on March 17, 2018.

A. The circumstances surrounding the instant accident are as follows.

B. The judgment of the court of first instance judged that the accident in this case occurred while the vehicle in the parking line was shocked by the plaintiff's vehicle while driving the vehicle in this case, and that the plaintiff's claim was all dismissed.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 through 5, Eul 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff's assertion that the accident of this case occurred because the defendant's vehicle had been seriously negligent in performing his duty of follow-down and caused the accident of this case due to the failure of the plaintiff's vehicle to enter the three-lane opposite to the U.S. by using the front-way red signal. In addition, considering that the collision side of the plaintiff's vehicle is the front side of the collision, the plaintiff's vehicle did not have a way to avoid the accident of this case. Therefore, the accident of this case occurred due to the negligence of the defendant's vehicle. Thus, there is no evidence that the plaintiff's assertion that the vehicle of this case occurred due to normal signal, and the vehicle of this case is in conflict with the defendant's vehicle that entered the front side side side of the three-lane street block after the U.S. movement, and the vehicle of this case has come to conflict with the defendant's vehicle that was moving within the parking area.

Furthermore, since the Plaintiff’s vehicle was on the rear boom, etc. of Defendant’s vehicle at the time when the vehicle entered the front direction of Defendant’s vehicle, it is the Defendant’s vehicle.