beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasons for this case are as follows: (a) the court of first instance added "No. 4-3, No. 5-1, No. 5-2, No. 1, No. 5-1, No. 1-2, No. 4, and No. 1-1, No. 5-2, No. 1-2, No. 1-2, and No. 4" to the effect that "the reasons for this case are as follows: (b) the front side of the Defendant vehicle was considerably covered; (c) the back of the Defendant vehicle, which was supported by the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff, was considerably damaged; and (d) the second shock by the Plaintiff’s vehicle on the part of the victim was stopped before the victim’s vehicle on the part of the Plaintiff.
(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The plaintiff asserts that the share ratio between the plaintiff and the defendant should be adjusted, considering the fact that there was a prior traffic accident between the victim's vehicle and the H driver's vehicle.
According to the testimony of the witness A and C of the first instance trial, the victim's vehicle was stopped immediately after the suspension of the vehicle of H driving immediately after the suspension of the vehicle of H driving, and the defendant's side and the plaintiff's side were shocked. However, according to the evidence above, the accident location was a road in front of the Suwon-gu Digital Complex, Young-gu, Youngdong Digital Complex, which is not an expressway or a road equivalent thereto, and the road was shut down by iron plates for subway construction, and the road was turned down at the same time as the previous day, and the accident time seems to have no hindrance to securing the night as around 13:20, and the accident time seems to have not been impeded. In light of the fact that the operator of the vehicle on the general road must take measures for smooth traffic flow, such as driving slowly or temporarily stopping, considering the flow of the front vehicle, it is difficult to see that H had caused a prior accident due to negligence in the operation of the vehicle, and there is no reason for the plaintiff's assertion.
3. As such, the judgment of the first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.