1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added by the plaintiff in this court, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the party's assertion (i) the point of view that the Oralone that the original and original Oralone driving of D was normally done is the last time confirmed at around 04:25:14 on October 24, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as "days omitted). The point of view that D was going beyond the road is at least 04:27 on the point of time when H reported the occurrence of an accident to the 112 situation room by which D was going beyond the road, and immediately after that, D was the Defendant's vehicle driving at the same time going against D's body. It is reasonable to view that D was alive for two to three minutes on the part of the Defendant's vehicle after going beyond D for the first time until D's back to the station on the Defendant's vehicle. Accordingly, the drivers of D, including B, and all of the vehicles serving in D as well as B, shall be a tort against D.

D. The 204:45 minutes after the lapse of 20 minutes from 04:25, while the Plaintiff’s vehicle in F driver’s service was over D, it is reasonable to deem D had already died before he was over the Defendant’s vehicle. As such, it cannot be held that B is liable for tort liability.

B. The Plaintiff’s evidence alone, which was submitted by the Plaintiff, served as Defendant D after 2-3 minutes in excess of D for the first time.

It is not sufficient to recognize that D died only because it was shocked on the Defendant’s vehicle, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the overall purport of Gap evidence 6-2, Nos. 47, 83, 85, Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, and Gap evidence Nos. 6-2 and 59, the circumstance in which Eul driving Oral Seas and driving it in the vicinity of the accident site is 04:25:14, and F, a driver of the plaintiff's vehicle, is about 04:25.