1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and those resulting from the participation in the appeal.

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations by the court of first instance, and the evidence duly admitted and examined by the court of first instance is recognized as legitimate in finding the facts and determining by the court of first instance even if the records of evidence No. 14-6 and evidence No. 14-1 to No. 5, No. 14-7, and No. 8 are included in the video of this court.

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as stated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following “2. Additional Determination” as to the Plaintiff’s assertion emphasized or added by this court. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s vehicle attempted to enter the instant intersection at a speed of not more than 20km/h prior to entering the intersection in which the instant accident occurred (hereinafter “instant intersection”). The Plaintiff’s Intervenor, a driver of the Plaintiff’s vehicle, (hereinafter “ Intervenor”), was entering the instant intersection to drive the defense to the maximum extent possible and to perform his/her duty at front and right and right and right and right and right, while the Defendant’s driver did not perform his/her duty at the time of the instant accident at the time of the instant accident and did not perform his/her duty at front and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and right and the instant accident occurred by going through the instant intersection at the time of the instant accident, not by going straight through the instant intersection at the time of the instant accident, but by going through the right and right and right and right and right.

Therefore, the accident of this case is caused by the total negligence of the driver of the defendant vehicle.

B. The following facts or circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the following facts, the above facts, the above facts of recognition, the evidence of the above evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 14-1 through 5, 7, and 8, i.e., the intersection of this case at the time of the accident, i.e., the intersection of this case at the time of the accident.