1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance is used as follows. Thus, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

- Parts written by the court of the first instance: 2. B. the court of the first instance.

subsection (1) of this section shall be as follows:

1) As to whether the instant truck was negligent in connection with the instant accident, in full view of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged as a comprehensive consideration of the results of the fact inquiries by Gap, Gap evidence Nos. 4, 5, 7, Eul evidence Nos. 1-1 through 28, Eul evidence No. 1-28, and the results of the fact inquiries by Gap, the Korean Institute of Scientific Investigation and Investigation by the Korean Court of the High Court of the High Court into Gwangju Science and Investigative Research Institute, the instant truck could be acknowledged as shocking the instant truck, which was normally proceeding on the right side of the instant vehicle beyond the central line, and the Plaintiff’s statement and image of the traffic accident appraisal report (Evidence No. 6) received by the traffic accident appraisal institute, the car engineer, and the appraiser of the road traffic accident appraisal institute, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the results of the fact inquiries by the appellate court into the traffic accident appraisal institute of the Party.

At the time of the occurrence of the instant accident, it is insufficient to recognize that C was negligent in driving due to the situation in which C was fully able to cope with to avoid a conflict with the instant car, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(1) According to the comprehensive traffic accident analysis report of the Road Traffic Authority (No. 4), the appraisal report of the National Institute of Scientific Investigation (No. 7, No. 1-23), and the appraisal report of the appraiser I of the Party 1, the instant car and the instant truck are deemed to conflict with each other beyond the central line, but the instant truck are deemed to conflict with each other.