1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 1, 2015, around 10:13, the Plaintiff’s operation was in excess of the Defendant, even though the Defendant attached the loading of Obane in front of the Dart located in Ansan-si, the Plaintiff was in excess of the Defendant.

B. At the time of the instant accident at 86 years of age, the Defendant suffered injury to the Gyeong-gu’s salt and tension, etc., and the Defendant paid KRW 1,471,880 as insurance money to the Defendant, the insurer of the Austria, Inc., the insurer of the instant case.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant exceeded the error of the plaintiff's negligence as to the defendant's injury because it exceeded the error of the plaintiff's assertion.

Nevertheless, inasmuch as KB damage insurance Co., Ltd., the insurer of the instant accident, is likely to cause damage to the Plaintiff, such as premium increase, by paying KRW 1,471,80 to the Defendant, thereby seeking confirmation of the absence of the Plaintiff’s damage liability against the Defendant due to the instant accident.

B. The Plaintiff, as a driver of Oraba, has a duty of care to prevent accidents after confirming whether he/she was a person around the operation.

In other words, the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the entries in Gap evidence No. 1 (including virtual numbers) and the results of CCTV video CD verification in the trial, are as follows: (a) more than 20 minutes prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, the Plaintiff demanded the Plaintiff to clean up and load the Plaintiff’s kid, thereby preventing the Plaintiff from departing from the Plaintiff; and (b) the Defendant discovered the Plaintiff’s loading prior to five minutes prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, including the Defendant’s loading of the Plaintiff, and the multilateral Defendant’s loading of the Defendant, making it possible for the Plaintiff to start up the accident prior to the occurrence of the instant accident, and thus, there were several ditches between the Plaintiff and the Defendant seeking to block the instant accident.