1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 24,949,920 against the Plaintiff and its related amount from April 12, 2014 to October 21, 2015 against the Defendant.

1. The reasons why the court should explain this part of the basic facts are as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning “Defendant A” as “Co-Defendant A of the court of first instance,” which is the same as that of Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination

A. According to the fact that the defendant's liability was established, the co-defendant A of the first instance trial (hereinafter "A") neglected his/her duty of care to faithfully examine the movement of the vehicle that is proceeding on the lane to be changed when changing the vehicle as the driver of the defendant vehicle, and thus, was negligent in the course of performing his/her duty of care. The defendant, who is the operator of the defendant vehicle, is liable to compensate for the damage suffered by the victim non-party G due to the instant accident that occurred during the operation of the vehicle.

However, the time of the occurrence of the instant accident is around 16:40, and the road of the place of the accident is merely a string so as to secure the operation of the vehicle, and there was no problem of securing the operation of the vehicle. A, prior to the Defendant’s vehicle, changed the vehicle to one lane in order to cause damage to the dump truck, which caused the instant accident. The Plaintiff’s driver can be seen as driving a dump truck prior to the Defendant vehicle. Therefore, it appears that the Defendant’s vehicle could have predicted the change of the vehicle from two lanes to one lane in order to avoid dump truck. While the instant accident damages the repair cost of KRW 35,00,000, the Plaintiff’s vehicle was destroyed by the repair cost of KRW 24,000,000 or more, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle was not immediately stopped in the right direction and continued to proceed to the right side of the vehicle, and the Plaintiff’s vehicle and its liability were limited to the Plaintiff’s 8% vehicle.