1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the cases of 3, 14, 18, and 4, 10, and 15, 3, 3, and 4, 4, 10, and 15, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

【The part used for the instant accident” From 3th to 18th, 14th, 14th 18th 10, the Defendant asserted that the instant accident occurred due to negligence in which the driver of the instant vehicle neglected his duty of care to prevent a traffic accident by accurately manipulating the steering gear, brakes, etc. of the instant vehicle and driving the instant vehicle in good condition, but failed to perform his duty of care to prevent a traffic accident at a speed exceeding the restricted speed, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to compensate the Defendant for damages arising from the instant accident. From 4th 10 to 15th 15th , the Defendant did not seem to have driven beyond the restricted speed of the instant vehicle. As seen in the upper part of the running direction of the instant vehicle, the Defendant appeared beyond the speed of the instant vehicle, and the hours used until the shock time was 1 second k from the upper part of the upper part of the instant vehicle’s driving direction, and even if the Defendant failed to drive the instant vehicle at a speed exceeding the restricted speed, it cannot be viewed that it did not err by negligence.