1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

The reasons why the court should explain this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the plaintiff's repeated assertions or a new assertion by the court of first instance, and therefore, it shall accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The place where the Plaintiff claimed the instant accident occurred is the location immediately after passing through the railroad crossing, and there was no streetlight in the vicinity, and it was difficult to identify the obstacles on the front side due to road slope.

In the railroad crossing, there was no obligation to temporarily suspend the car of this case due to the operation of yellow dust, etc.

The point at which the instant vehicle could have been discovered can be the height of the slope of the railroad crossing. This is a place that does not exceed 10 meters from the point at which the instant accident occurred. Thus, even if the instant vehicle complies with the limited speed, the occurrence of the instant accident could not be avoided.

In other words, there is no proximate causal relationship between the Plaintiff’s excessive vehicle and the instant accident.

Judgment

According to the overall purport of the film and pleading Nos. 6-1 through 4, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) there was a street lamps installed immediately before the entry into the railroad crossing near the point where the instant accident occurred; (b) there was a little slope near the railroad crossing, but the degree of such slope is very perfect; and (c) the fact that the railroad crossing sign and the stop signal sign were installed on the right side immediately adjacent to the utility pole where the said street is installed, etc., and even though there was no particular difficulty in distinguishing the obstacles from the front road crossing, the driver of the Plaintiff vehicle did not find the pertinent cleaning vehicle in the direction of the road crossing before the speed crossing or without temporarily stopping.