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. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment of the plaintiff to the following as to the plaintiff's assertion in the court of first instance, thereby citing it as is in accordance

2. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion in the trial room

A. Comprehensively taking account of the Plaintiff’s assertion film images and the result of the analysis thereof, the Plaintiff taxi had sufficiently known the direction direction, etc., and had fully changed the lane, and after completing the change of the lane, the Plaintiff taxi caused the instant accident by gross negligence of only the Defendant’s speed and the front direction of the Plaintiff taxi.

B. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 4-3, 4, and 5-1 of the evidence No. 4-1, it is recognized that the driver of the Plaintiff taxi stated that the driver of the Plaintiff taxi stated that the driver “the driver gave direction, etc. before changing the vehicle to the right side,” and that the Defendant stated that “the Plaintiff taxi changed the vehicle to the right side, caused the vehicle to shock the front part of the lower part of the Defendant franchise vehicle in front of the left side of the vehicle in front of the right side, and then re-easting the front part of the Defendant franchise vehicle to the right-hand part.”

However, the aforementioned evidence, Gap evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 6, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1-2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, and the whole purport of the pleadings by the court of first instance, are comprehensively considered in light of the following circumstances, namely, ① the statement about the direction direction, etc. of the plaintiff taxi driver is closely related to his criminal liability, making it difficult to believe the statement as they are. ② With respect to the shock level and order, the plaintiff taxi driver consistently argued to the effect that "the plaintiff taxi driver shocked the right-hand door after the shock of the plaintiff taxi driver's right-hand back," and on this basis, the accident of this case by the investigative agency.